iilijll 


liiii 


jillliipni:: 


I. 

1 

1 

! 
1 

^          PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

! 

! 
1 

' 

1 
Shelf 

BL  239  .M3  1890 
MacColl,  Malcolm,  1831-1907 
Christianity  in  relation  to 
science  and  morals 

i 

CHRISTIANITY 

IN    RELATION   TO 

SCIENCE    AND    MORALS 


C  H  R  I  S  r  I  A  N  I  T  \ 


IN    RELATION    TO 


SCIENCE   AND    MORALS 


MALCOLM  ^MacCOLL,  M.A. 

CANON    RE'^IDENTIARY    OF    RIPON 
ANIl    RECTOR    OF    ST.    CEORGE's,    CITY    OF    LONDON 


JAMKS     POTT     .\:     CO. 

14    AND     16    ASTOR    PLACE 

ilcto   r>orfe 

M  DCCCXC 
\_ThirJ  Edition] 


TO  MY  DEAR  FRIEND 

A.  S. 

I  DEDICATE 

THE   THIRD   EDITION   OF   THIS    LITTLE   BOOK, 

IN   GRATEFUL    RECOGNITION   OF   VALUABLE   SUGGESIIONS 
AND   CRITICISMS. 


PREFACE 

A  FEW  words  are  needed  to  explain  the  Imper- 
fections in  style  and  in  other  respects  of  the 
followinor  Lectures.  At  the  commencement  of 
my  term  of  residence  at  Ripon,  in  the  beginning 
of  this  year,  I  was  asked  by  some  of  the  con- 
gregation w'ho  assemble  in  the  Cathedral  to 
eive  them  a  regular  course  of  instruction  on 
some  points  of  Christian  doctrine.  I  gladly 
agreed,  and  chose  the  NIcene  Creed  as  a 
subject  of  exposition.  Expecting  only  some 
forty  or  fifty  persons  to  be  present,  I  intended 
to  give  the  instructions  at  my  private  residence. 
The  number,  however,  who  Intimated  their 
intention  to  attend  was  so  laree  that  I  was 
obliged  to  meet  them  in  the  nave  of  the 
Cathedral.       What    was     meant    to    be     mere 

b 


^iii  PREFACE. 

informal    and     catechetical     Instructions    thus 
grew  into  a  set  of  formal  Lectures.     They  were 
delivered    extempore,    and    were   reported    in 
several  newspapers,  thus  reaching  a  mudi  wider 
circle  than  those  for  whom  they  were  originally 
intended.      Letters   have   reached   me  from  all 
parts  of  the  kingdom,  and  also  from  the  Con- 
tinent, urging  me  to   publish   the   Lectures  in 
a   volume.      Some   of  these    letters    are    from 
working  men,  and  others  from  persons  whose 
abilities    and  judgment  command   my  respect. 
I  have  therefore  corrected,  and  In  some  cases 
expanded,  the  reports  of  the    Lectures   which 
appeared   in  the  press  at  the  time.      But  they 
are    reproduced    here    mostly    as    they   were 
delivered,    with    the    exception    of    the    notes 
and    nearly    all    the    quotations  ;    for    I    had 
hardly  any  books  with  me  at  Ripon  to  refer  to. 
I  am  so  conscious  of  the  many  defects  of  style 
and    reasoning  which    disfigure    the    Lectures, 
that  I  should  not  offer  them  to  the  public  at  all 
were  it  not  for  the  many  intimations  that  have 
reached  me,   especially  from  working  men  all 


PREFACE.  ix 

over  the  country,  that  the  Lectures  would  be 
useful  to  persons  who  have  not  leisure  to  study 
for  themselves  the  questions  with  which  I  have 
dealt.  The  last  Lecture  was  delivered  in  Ripon 
Cathedral  in  the  summer  of  1887,  and  is  re- 
produced from  a  report  of  it  at  the  time  in  the 
Ripon  Gazette. 


MALCOLM  MacCOLL. 


London, 

August,  1SS9. 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD 
EDITION 

The  second  edition  of  this  volume  was  called 
for  so  quickly  that  I  was  unable  to  make  any 
alteration  beyond  the  republication,  in  an 
Appendix,  of  a  review  of  The  Unseen  Universe, 
which  I  wrote  on  the  appearance  of  that 
remarkable  book  fourteen  years  ago.  I  have 
republished  that  article  now  in  order  to  show 
that  the  views  which  I  have  expressed  on  the 
subject  of  creation  rest  on  high  authority,  both 
scientific  and  theological. 

In  this  edition  I  have  made  a  few  verbal 
corrections,  but  the  substance  of  the  volume 
remains  unchanged.  On  one  point  only  have 
I  seen  cause  to  modify  any  of  the  opinions  and 
arguments  to  which  I  have  committed  myself. 
That  point  is  the  permanence  of  sex  in  the 
spiritual    world.       I    am     convinced     that     tlnj 


xii  PREFACE    TO   THE   THIRD    EDITION. 

opinion  which  I  have  expressed  on  page  120 
cannot  be  sustained.  It  is  evident,  I  think, 
that  when  our  Lord  declared  that  human  beings 
in  the  spiritual  world  will  be  "  equal  to  the 
angels,"  ''  neither  marrying  nor  giving  in 
marriage,"  He  meant  no  more  than  that  the 
union  of  the  sexes  for  a  specific  and  temporary 
purpose — the  propagation  of  life — will  naturally 
have  ceased.^  There  is  nothing  in  His  words 
to  imply  that  the  psychological  distinction  of 
the  two  sexes  will  ever  cease  ;  and  reason  and 
analogy  would  seem  to  demand  their  continu- 
ance. I  quote  the  following  from  the  criticism 
of  a  very  able  friend — one  of  several  whose 
opinions  I  have  asked  :  "  To  me  it  seems  that, 
for  those  who  believe  in  a  future  life,  there  are 


1  Cornelius  k  Lapide  explains  the  passage  in  this  sense  : 
"Equales  enim  angelis  sunt  in  caelibatri,  in  immortalitate,  in 
gloria :  sicut  ergo  angeli  non  nubunt,  non  generant,  si  nee 
beati,  quia  ipsi  per  se  immortales  et  gloriosi,  in  omne  asvum 
perennabunt ;  generatio  enim  in  hac  vita  quaeJ^tur  ob  mortem, 
ut  pater  moriens  in  filio  quern  vivum  relinquit  quasi  superstes 
vivat  et  perennet.  Unde  S.  Cyrillus  :  Siciit  angeli.,  inquit,  non 
sunt  per  generationem  propagati^  ita  his  qui  resurgunt  non  est 
opus  nuptiis.  Et  S.  Chrysostomus  in  Matt.  c.  xx. :  Hie  ducimtur 
uxores.,  inquit,  ut  nasceiido  S2ippleatur  quod  moriendo  minuitur; 
illic  autem  mors  ?ton  erit  et  co?iseque?itiir  nee  nuptice  nee  uxores, 
nee  getter atio.^^ 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD  EDITION.  xiii 

onh'  two  possible  ways  of  looking  at  the  matter  : 
either  that  sex  goes  deeper  and  beyond  mere 
physical  differences,  and  will  therefore  persist 
spiritually  through  •  all  eternity ;  or  that  sex, 
with  all  the  difference  of  character  observable 
in  men  and  women,  is  dependent  on  physical 
conditions  alone ;  and  that,  therefore,  when  the 
material  passes  away,  the  spirit — the  human 
nature  left — will  be  unisexual  in  its  attributes. 
Of  course,  sex  in  its  physical  sense  would  in  no 
case  outlast  the  body.  But  may  we  not  believe 
in  the  man  soul  and  the  woman  soul  existing 
separately,  completing  each  other,  persisting 
eternally,  the  eternal  difference  making  eternal 
harmony  ?  And  there  is  much  to  support  this 
view,  for  the  difference  underlies  all  nature  ;  it 
is  the  very  life  of  the  material  world.  In  spite 
of  the  one  or  two  exceptions  you  quote.  Nature 
on  the  whole  is  bisexual.  If  one  may  believe 
that  this  world  shadows  forth  faintly  the  unseen 
universe,  would  there  not  seem  to  be  some 
deeper  meaning  in  the  law  of  Nature  than  the 
mere  reproduction  of  physical  life  ?  Docs  it 
not  point  to  some  enduring  difference,  some 
eternal  duality  ?  " 


xiv  PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

This  reasoning  seems  to  me  as  sound  as  it  is 
well  expressed.  But  close  observers  of  human 
nature  have  urged,  on  the  other  side,  that  men 
who  are  constitutionally  weak,  delicate,  effemi- 
nate, who  have  no  physical  stamina,  have  many 
of  the  spiritual  failings  and  qualities  of  women, 
their  physical  organism  thus  apparently  unsex- 
ing  their  souls.  This  would  not  necessarily 
imply  an  ethical  change,  making  souls  virtuous 
which  were  naturally  vicious,  or  the  reverse  ; 
but  only  a  sexual  modification  of  qualities,  good 
qualities  as  well  as  evil  ones  being  more 
feminine  than  masculine. 

This  would  obviously  make  the  quality  of 
the  soul  dependent  on  Its  physical  framework. 
But  surely  this  is  against  the  analogy  of  Nature, 
where  the  rule  is  that  the  spiritual  essence 
fashions  its  material  covering,  not  that  the 
material  shall  mould  its  spiritual  tenant.  I  say 
"  spiritual "  tenant  because.  In  the  last  analysis, 
every  form  of  life  is  rooted  in  a  spiritual  cause 
which  eludes  the  scrutiny  of  science.  The 
oyster  shapes  its  shell,  not  the  shell  the  oyster. 
The  development,  the  formative  process,  is 
from   within    outward,  not   contrariwise.     The 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xv 

emotions  of  the  soul  arc  mirrored  in  the  coun- 
tenance, and  it  is  possible  that  a  sufficiently 
microscopic  vision  might  be  able  to  detect,  not 
only  in  the  features,  but  in  the  whole  structure 
of  the  body,  the  history  of  the  soul  which  built 
and  shaped  it,  as  surely  as  the  geologist  spells 
out  the  history  of  our  planet  in  the  strata  of  its 
crust.  To  such  vision  each  body  would  be 
the  legible  autobiography  of  the  soul  which 
energised  within  it. 

It  may  indeed  be  said  with  truth  that  the 
body  too  leaves  its  impress  on  the  soul — marks 
its  own  character  upon  its  spiritual  partner. 
But  this  it  does  as  the  instrument  of  the  soul. 
The  originating  force  was  in  the  soul,  and  the 
scars  indicted  on  it  by  the  body  are  thus  its 
own  as  truly  as  a  self-inflicted  wound  on  the 
body  is  not  the  work  of  the  bullet,  but  of  the 
hand  that  pulled  the  trigger. 

But  the  view  which  I  am  combating  supposes 
that  a  pJiysiqiie  imperfect  ab  initio  renders  the 
soul  imperfect  also.  Yet  even  if  this  were  the 
case,  would  not  the  logical  inference  be  that  a 
normal  physique  would  likewise  impress  its  own 
character  on   the   soul,   and   that   consequently 


xvi  PREFACE    TO    THE   THIRD  EDITION. 

the  distinction  of  sex  must  survive   the  body 
and  remain  permanent  in  the  soul  ?     But  man's 
physical  organism,  as   I   have  already  said,  is 
itself  the    product  of  a   non-material   essence. 
The   mere  matter   of  the  body  is  but  a   con- 
solidation of  gases,  which  necessarily  take  their 
shape  from  the  organizing  principle  that  works 
unseen.      The  abortive  result  must  therefore  be 
due  to  some  flaw  deeper  than  mere  physique, 
and  consequently  it  is  more  reasonable  to  infer 
imperfection  oi physiqiieixova  defective  psychical 
organization    than   abnormal  spiritual  qualities 
from     imperfection    of  physique.      Martensen, 
in    his    profound   work    on    Christian   Ethics, 
observes:    ''The    sexual    difference    embraces 
the  whole   individuality ;  for  man  and  woman 
are  differently  organized,  as  well  in  a  psychical 
as  in  a  bodily  point  of  view.     Each  of  them  is 
destined  to  represent  humanity,  yet  with  such 
limitation  that  only  both  together  present  the 
whole  human  being.  .  .  .   He  is  related  to  her 
as  the  spirit  is  related  to  the  soul,  and  while 
man   has    to   develop    his    spirit's    life    to    the 
psychical,  woman  has  to  develop  her  psychical 
to  the  spiritual.  .  .  .  Woman,  again,  is  adapted 


PREFACE   TO    THE    THIRD  ED  IT  I  OX.  xvii 

for  the  harmonious  unity  of  nature  and  spirit. 
In  her  knowledge  she  embraces  all  things 
intuitively,  and  thereby  is  able  in  many  cases 
to  know  the  true  and  right  where  the  man, 
through  his  very  reflection,  is  hindered  from 
seeing  this."  And  in  answer  to  the  question, 
*'Will  the  distinction  of  male  and  female 
continue "  in  the  world  unseen  ?  Martensen 
replies  :  "  We  certainly  cannot  doubt  that  it 
will,  seeing  that  it  has  so  comprehensive  an 
influence  upon  the  whole  individuality  of  the 
spirit."  ^ 

Having  submitted  the  question  to  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's consideration,  together  with  che  criticism 
of  one  of  my  correspondents,  I  have  his  per- 
mission to  quote  the  following  from  his  reply : — 

**  I  have  never  examined  books  of  authority 
as  to  the  permanence  of  sex.  Your  corre- 
spondent, I  think,  states  the  matter  with  great 
ability,  though  I  hardly  travel  with  him  all  the 
way.  The  question  is  interesting — I  should 
call  it  seductive ;  for  my  inclination  and  judg- 
ment are  rather  to  this  eflect :  that,  knowing 
nothing,   so   to  speak,  of  the   thousands   upon 

^  Martcnsen's  Christian  Ethics^  ii.  pp.  11-13. 


xviii  PREFACE   TO    THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

thousands  of  the  conditions  of  the  new  existence 
in  the  world  unseen,  I  ask  of  myself  why  this 
also  should  not  be  allowed  to  remain  un- 
examined, and  whether  it  is  not  best  to  leave 
the  solution  in  the  hands  of  the  great  Father. 
I  am  not,  then,  keen  upon  the  scent. 

*'  I  admit  that  some  arguments  against  the 
permanence  of  gender  may  seem  to  arise  from 
its  original  absence,  and  from  the  Darwinian 
incidents  pointing  to  an  original  unity. 

"  But  in  the  actual  development  is  included 
a  distinction  of  moral  and  spiritual  type.  The 
man  and  the  woman  are  not,  ought  not  to  be, 
the  same ;  and  the  law  of  nature  for  each  is  to 
be  built  up  and  corroborated,  by  the  vast  power 
of  habit,  in  its  own  type.  The  more  character 
is  opened  and  matured,  therefore,  the  more  I 
should  expect  it  to  be  differentiated  and  the 
distinctness  of  the  form  of  existence  to  harden. 
At  the  same  time,  not  only  is  each  the  supple- 
ment of  the  other,  but  each  may  borrow  and 
appropriate  from  the  other. 

"  I  cannot,  from  the  defect  of  the  man's 
physique,  and  consequent  approach  to  feminine- 
ness,  be  ready  to  draw  a  broad  conclusion,  for 


PREFACE    TO    THE    'IHIRD   EDJTIOX.  xix 

it   would    rest   on    a    ground    not    normal,    but 
abnormal. 

''  All  this  seems  to  lie  In  the  region  of  meta- 
physics. If  divinity  is  taken  in,  one  can  conceive 
that  questions  may  arise  as  to  the  office  and 
character  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  ;  questions 
which  may  readily  enough  become  dangerous. 

"  The  loneer  I  live  the  more  does  human 
nature  seem  to  me  profound  and  wonderful, 
and  the  less  able  I  am  to  arrive  at  definite 
solutions  respecting  it.  I  own,  therefore,  to 
being  much  out  of  my  depth,  and  indisposed  to 
push  any  observation  or  inference  which  the 
matter  suggests  to  a  logical  conclusion." 

I  do  not  think  that  the  question  could  be 
summed  up  more  tersely  than  in  this  statement, 
and  I  am  content  to  leave  it  where  Mr.  Glad- 
stone has  left  it.  He  touches,  however,  upon 
one  point  which  requires  some  consideration. 
Amone  multitudes  of  sincere  Christians  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary  has  been  exalted,  if  not 
dogmatically,  at  least  in  popular  devotions,  to 
the  position  of  a  second  Eve,  bearing  her  share 
with  the  second  Adam  in  the  regeneration  of 
the  human  race.     "  Co-redcmptrcss  "  is  one  ot 


XX  PREFACE   TO    THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

similar  titles  applied  to  her,  and  the  late  Father 
Faber  went  so  far  as  to  claim  for  her  a  quasi- 
real  presence  in  the  Eucharist.  This  undue 
exaltation  of  her  whom  ''  all  nations "  should 
call  "blessed" — and  whom  the  Puritan  Bishop 
Hall  did  not  hesitate  to  apostrophize  in  the 
words,  "  O  Mary  !  he  cannot  honour  thee  too 
much  who  deifieth  thee  not " — is  doubtless  due 
to  an  imperfect  apprehension  of  the  fact  that 
our  Lord  includes  in  His  humanity  the  totality 
of  human  attributes,  the  permanent  properties 
of  both  sexes — woman's  tenderness  and  delicate 
sensibility,  together  with  those  qualities  to 
which  we  naturally  give  the  name  of  ''  manly."  ^ 

1  "We  discriminate  between  masculine  and  feminine  charac- 
ters. But  though  in  Christ  we  must  acknowledge  the  highest 
pre-eminence  of  manly  character,  the  world-contesting,  world- 
subduing  heroism,  which  at  the  same  time  has  here  this  peculi- 
arity, that  it  bears  the  consciousness  that  it  must  give  way  for  a 
time,  but  accepts  suffering  and  death  as  moments  \jnoinetitd\  in 
its  work,  certain  of  victory  at  last ;  yet  we  cannot  call  Him  a 
masculine  character,  as  in  contradistinction  to  the  feminine. 
For  the  highest  characteristics  of  womanly  virtue  are  found  also 
in  Him — infinite  devotion  and  singleness  of  purpose,  the  un- 
ruffled serenity  of  a  calm  and  gentle  spirit,  pure  and  modest 
feeling  in  the  maintenance  of  the  finest  moral  distinctions ;  and 
the  power  peculiar  to  women  of  passive  obedience,  power  to 
bear,  to  suffer,  to  forego,  in  unspeakable  loyalty." — Martensen's 
Christian  Ethics^  i.  p.  252. 


PREFACE   TO   THE   THIRD  EDITION.  xxi 

That  exquisite  power  of  sympathy  which  wc 
associate  with  woman's  nature,  and  which  was 
so  conspicuous  in  His  that  the  touch  of  appeal- 
ing suffering  upon  His  garment  thrilled  through 
Him  as  with  a  shock  of  spiritual  magnetism, 
may  have  been  due,  viewed  on  its  human  side, 
to  the  f^ict  that  He  derived  His  humanity 
entirely  from  the  female  channel.  But  His 
humanity  being  thus  complete  and  unique, 
embracing  the  imperishable  attributes  of  both 
sexes,  we  cannot  argue  from  it  as  to  the  future 
relation  of  humanity  to  sex.  Indeed,  the  fact 
that  His  perfect  humanity  required  a  unique 
method  of  derivation  would  seem  to  imply 
that,  apart  from  such  exceptional  experience, 
humanity  will  retain  in  the  spiritual  world  the 
duality  which  distinguishes  it  here. 

And  there  is  this  further  observation  to  be 
made,  namely,  that,  inasmuch  as  Christ  is  "  the 
second  Adam,"  the  second  Head  of  mankind, 
who  are  to  be  regenerated  in  Him,  it  was 
necessary  that  He  should  possess  human  nature 
in  its  fulness.  The  natural  man  is  descended 
from  two  progenitors,  male  and  female. 
Humanity  is  regenerated  by  being  brought  into 


xxii  PREFACE   TO   THE    THIRD   EDITION. 

communication  with  a  single  source  of  life,  our 
Incarnate  Lord,  but  without  erasing  in  any 
way  the  difference  of  sex.  In  this  connection 
I  may  venture  to  quote  the  following  protest 
from  Martensen  against  any  attempt  to  regard 
our  Lord's  celibate  life  as  the  ideal  at  which  He 
would  have  mankind  to  aim  : — - 

"  With  regard  to  the  celibacy  of  Christ,  this 
is  entirely  unique,  and  must  be  regarded  from 
its  own  point  of  view.  It  cannot,  for  instance, 
be  explained  by  the  fact  that  He  was  one  among 
a  multitude  of  the  above  angelic  natures,^  which 
are  nevertheless,  in  many  other  respects,  in- 
cluded under  sin.  And  as  little  does  it  find  its 
explanation  in  the  impossibility  of  His  finding, 
as  a  falsely  aesthetic  notion  supposes,  any  like- 
minded  individual  who  was  fitted  for  Him. 
He  never  could  have  sought  such  an  individual, 
who  must  indeed,  in  a  certain  sense,  have  been 
His  equal  in  birth  ;  for  as  the  Saviour  of  the 
world,  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  second  Adam, 
He    was    utterly    incommensurable    with     any 

1  z.<?.,  as  Martensen  explains,  ''  individuals,  both  male  and 
female,  but  especially  female,  possessing  a  special  gift  for 
celibacy,  which  is  in  its  deepest  sense  a  natural  endowment  of 
angelic  natures." 


PREFACE    TO    THE    rilIRD    ED/TIOX.  xxiii 

Other   luini.'in   bcinrr — nay,   witli    the    totality  of 
those   lower  earthl)'   relations,    into   which    He 
indeed   brought  a  blessing,  but  with   which   it 
was    utterly    impossible    for    Mini    to    identify 
Himself.     His  bride  could  be  none  other  than 
the  Church.      He  was  to  be  the  ancestor  of  a 
new    and    higher    manhood,    and    His    advent 
forms    a    contrast    to    the    condition    in    which 
children    who    are    only    to    continue    the    old 
Adamic  race  are  born.      He  came,  on  the  con- 
trary, to  introduce  into  the  old  Adamic  race  an 
entirely  new  process  of  generation  and  birth, 
namely,  recreneration.     And  if  the  old  prophetic 
saying,   *  Here  am    I    and    the    children   whom 
Thou  hast  given  Me'  (Heb.   ii.   13),  has  been 
applied  to  Him,  those  children  are  intended   to 
whom  He  has  given  power  to  become  children 
of  God,  who  are  '  born,  not  of  .   .  .   flesh,  nor  ot 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  '  (John  i.  13).      To 
conceive  of  the  possibility  of  a  married  life  in 
His  case  proves  itself,  in  proportion  as  such  a 
thought  is  reasoned  out,  whether  in  the  physical 
or    moral    and     intellectual    aspect,    a    profane 
thought,  nearly  akin  with  the  view  which  denies 
His  birth  of  a  pure  virgin.      In  this  connection, 


xxiv  PREFACE    TO   THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

it  may  be  fitly  remembered  that  among  all  the 
temptations  by  which  Christ  was,  according  to 
Scripture  testimony,  tried,  not  one  occurs  in 
the  most  distant  degree  referring  to  the  point 
in  question."  ^ 

The  title,  "  the  Son  of  man,"  which  our  Lord 
claims  especially  as  His  own,  implies  the 
universality  of  His  humanity,  and  points  Him 
out  as  the  central  individuality  of  the  human 
oreanism, — of  the  kincrdom  of  eternal  individu- 
alities  of  which  the  human  race  consists.  It 
was  in  a  spirit  of  unconscious  prophecy  that 
Pilate  proclaimed,  "  Behold  the  Man  !  "  And 
yet,  universal  as  Christ  is  in  His  character  of 
Pattern  Man,  it  is  no  impression  of  vague  and 
colourless  abstraction  that  He  leaves  upon  the 
mind,  but  that  of  vivid  individuality,  a  form 
of  bright  humanity  exhibiting  Himself  in  an 
infinite  number  of  individual  refractions,  in  an 
inexhaustible  variety  of  the  finest  individual 
traits. 

It  is  a  great  satisfaction  to  me  to  be  able  to 
state  that  I  have  the  late  Bishop  of  Durham's 
own  authority  for  saying  that  I  have  correctly 

1  Christian  Ethics,  iii.  pp.  13,  14. 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xxv 

interpreted  his  Dissertation  on  the  Christian 
Ministry  on  pp.  257-261,  273,  of  this  volume. 
In  a  letter  which  he  was  good  enough  to  write 
to  me  on  reading  my  book,  he  says  :  "  I  am 
very  pleased  to  see  that  you  have  not  mistaken 
the  purport  of  my  Essay  on  the  Christian 
Ministry,  as  so  many  have  done."  He  sent 
me  at  the  same  time  the  following  very  full 
summary  of  his  various  statements  on  that 
subject : — 

"The  Threefold  Ministry. 

{From  the  writings  of  the  Bishop  of  Durham^ 

*' I.  Commentary  on  the .  Epistle  to  the  Phl- 
lippians  [Essay  on  the  Christian  Ministry), 
1 868. 

(i)  p.  199,  ed.  I  ;  p.  201,  later  edd. 

Unless  we  have  recourse  to  a  sweep- 
ing condemnation  of  received  docu- 
ments, it  seems  vain  to  deny  that  early 
in  the  second  century  the  episcopal 
office  was  firmly  and  widely  established. 
Thus  durincr  the  last  three  decades  of 
the    first    century,    and    consequently 


ri  PREFACE    TO   THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

during    the  lifetime  of  the  latest   sur- 
viving Apostle,  this  change  must  have 
been  brought  about, 
(il)  p.  212,  ed.  I  ;  p.  214,  later  edd. 

The  evidence  for  the  early  and  wide 
extension  of  episcopacy  throughout 
proconsular  Asia,  the  scene  of  St. 
John's  latest  labours,  may  be  con- 
sidered irrefragable. 
(HI)  p.  225,  ed.  I  ;  p.  227,  later  edd. 

But  these  notices,  besides  establish- 
ing the  general  prevalence  of  epis- 
copacy, also  throw  considerable  light 
on  its  origin.  .  .  .  Above  all  they 
establish  this  result  clearly,  that  its 
maturer  forms  are  seen  first  in  those 
regions  where  the  latest  surviving 
Apostles  (more  especially  St.  John) 
fixed  their  abode,  and  at  a  time  when 
its  prevalence  cannot  be  dissociated 
from  their  influence  or  their  sanction, 
(iv)  p.  232,  ed.  I  ;  p.  234,  later  edd. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  institution 
of  an  episcopate  must  be  placed  as  far 
back  as  the  closing  years  of  the  first 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xxvii 

century,  and  that  It  cannot,  without 
violence  to  historical  testimony,  be 
dissociated  from  the  name  of  St.  John. 

(v)  p.  265,  ed.  I  ;  p.  267,  later  edd. 

If  the  precedinc^  Investigation  be 
substantially  correct,  the  threefold 
ministry  can  be  traced  to  Apostolic 
direction ;  and  short  of  an  express 
statement  we  can  possess  no  better 
assurance  of  a  Divine  appointment  or 
at  least  a  Divine  sanction.  If  the 
facts  do  not  allow  us  to  unchurch 
other  Christian  communities^  differently 
organized,  they  may  at  least  justify  our 
jealous  adhesion  to  a  polity  derived 
from  this  source. 

"2.   Com7ne7ttary  07i  the  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians  (Preface  to  the  Sixth  Editioii),  1881. 

*'  The  present  edition  is  an  exact  reprint  of 

^  "As  long  ago  as  St.  Paul's  time  there  were  believers  who 
said  that  they  were  not  of  the  body ;  we  may  not  ask,  as  he 
did,  'Are  they  not  of  the  body?'  It  is  not  for  us  to  judge, 
certainly  not  for  us  to  exclude  ;  not  for  us  to  think  of  shutting 
the  ears  of  God,  or  telling  to  our  severest  adversaries  that  He 
is  not  theirs  as  well  as  ours." — Lecture  of  the  Bishop  of  Oxford 
(Dr.  Stubbs)  on  the  Study  of  Church  History.  See  Guaraian 
of  Jan.  15,  1890,  pp.  7,9. 


xxviii  PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

the  preceding  one.  This  statement  applies  as 
well  to  the  Essay  on  the  Threefold  Ministry, 
as  to  the  rest  of  the  work.  I  should  not  have 
thought  it  necessary  to  be  thus  explicit,  had  I 
not  been  informed  of  a  rumour  that  I  had  found 
reason  to  abandon  the  main  opinions  expressed 
in  that  Essay.  There  is  no  foundation  for  any 
such  report.  The  only  point  of  importance  on 
which  I  have  modified  my  views,  since  the 
Essay  was  first  written,  is  the  authentic  form 
of  the  letters  of  St.  Ignatius.  Whereas  in  the 
earlier  editions  of  this  work  I  had  accepted  the 
three  Curetonian  letters,  I  have  since  been 
convinced  (as  stated  in  later  editions)  that  the 
seven  letters  of  the  short  Greek  are  genuine. 
This  divergence,  however,  does  not  materially 
affect  the  main  point  at  issue,  since  even  the 
Curetonian  letters  afford  abundant  evidence  of 
the  spread  of  episcopacy  in  the  earliest  years 
of  the  second  century. 

"  But  on  the  other  hand,  while  disclaiming 
any  change  in  my  opinions,  I  desire  equally  to 
disclaim  the  representations  of  those  opinions 
which  have  been  put  forward  In  some  quarters. 
The  object  of  the  Essay  was  an  investigation 


PREFACE   TO    THE    THIRD   EDrflON.  xxix 

into  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Ministry.  The 
result  has  been  a  confirmation  of  the  statement 
in  the  Enghsh  Ordinal,  '  It  is  evident  unto  all 
men  diligently  reading  the  Holy  Scripture  and 
ancient  authors  that  from  the  Apostles'  time 
there  have  been  these  orders  of  Ministers  in 
Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.' 
But  I  was  scrupulously  anxious  not  to  over- 
state the  evidence  in  any  case  ;  and  it  would 
seem  that  partial  and  qualifying  statements, 
prompted  by  this  anxiety,  have  assumed 
undue  proportions  in  the  minds  of  some 
readers,  who  have  emphasized  them  to  the 
neglect  of  the  general  drift  of  the  Essay. 

"3.  Sermon  preached  before  the  Representative 
Council  of  the  Scottish  Episcopal  CIntrch  in  St. 
Marys  Church  at  Glasgoiv,  October  10,  1882. 

"  When  I  spoke  of  unity  as  St.  Paul's  charge 
to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  the  thoughts  of  all 
present  must,  I  imagine,  have  fastened  on  one 
application  of  the  Apostolic  rule  which  closely 
concerns  yourselves.  Episcopal  communities 
in  Scotland  outside  the  organization  of  the 
Scottish  Episcopal  Church — this  is  a  spectacle 
which    no    one,    I    imagine,   would    view    with 


XXX  PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

satisfaction  in  itself,  and  which  only  a  very 
urgent  necessity  could  justify.  Can  such  a 
necessity  be  pleaded  ?  *  One  body  '  as  well  as 
'  one  Spirit,'  this  is  the  Apostolic  rule.  No 
natural  interpretation  can  be  put  on  these 
words  which  does  not  recognize  the  obligation 
of  external,  corporate  union.  Circumstances 
may  prevent  the  realization  of  the  Apostle's 
conception,  but  the  ideal  must  be  ever  present 
to  our  aspirations  and  our  prayers.  I  have 
reason  to  believe  that  this  matter  lies  very 
near  to  the  heart  of  all  Scottish  Episcopalians. 
May  God  grant  you  a  speedy  accomplishment 
of  your  desire.  You  have  the  same  doctrinal 
formularies :  you  acknowledge  the  same  epis- 
copal polity :  you  respect  the  same  liturgical 
forms.  *  Sirs,  ye  are  brethren.'  Do  not 
strain  the  conditions  of  reunion  too  tightly. 
I  cannot  say,  for  I  do  not  know,  what  faults  or 
what  misunderstandings  there  may  have  been 
on  either  side  in  the  past.  If  there  have  been 
any  faults,  forget  them.  If  there  exist  any 
misunderstandings,  clear  them  up.  '  Let  the 
dead  past  bury  its  dead.' 

^  ^  %  ^  m 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xxxi 

"  While  you  seek  unity  among  yourselves,  you 
will  pray  likewise  that  unity  may  be  restored 
to  your  Presbyterian  brothers.  Not  insensible 
to  the  special  blessings  which  you  yourselves 
enjoy,  clinging  tenaciously  to  the  threefold 
ministry  as  the  completeness  of  the  Apostolic 
ordinance  and  the  historical  backbone  of  the 
Church,  valuing  highly  all  those  sanctities  of 
lituroical  office  and  ecclesiastical  season,  which, 
modified  from  age  to  age,  you  have  inherited 
from  an  almost  immemorial  past,  thanking 
God,  but  not  thanking  Him  in  any  Pharisaic 
spirit,  that  these  so  many  and  great  privileges 
are  continued  to  you  which  others  have  lost, 
you  will  nevertheless  shrink,  as  from  the 
venom  of  a  serpent's  fang,  from  any  mean 
desire  that  their  divisions  may  be  perpetuated 
in  the  hope  of  profiting  by  their  troubles. 
'  Divide  et  impera '  may  be  a  shrewd  worldly 
motto ;  but  coming  in  contact  with  spiritual 
things,  it  defiles  them  like  pitch.  *  Pacifica  et 
impera '  is  the  true  watchword  of  the  Christian 
and  the  Churchman. 

"4.  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius,  vol.  i.,  pp.  376, 
11  n   1S85. 


xxxii  PREFACE   TO   THE   THIRD  EDITION, 

*'  The  whole  subject  has  been  investigated 
by  me  in  an  Essay  on  the  Christian  Ministry  ; 
and  to  this  I  venture  to  refer  my  readers  for 
fuller  information.  It  is  there  shown,  if  I  mis- 
take not,  that  though  the  New  Testament 
itself  contains  as  yet  no  direct  and  indisputable 
notices  of  a  localized  episcopate  in  the  Gentile 
Churches,  as  distinguished  from  the  moveable 
episcopate  exercised  by  Timothy  in  Ephesus, 
and  by  Titus  in  Crete,  yet  there  is  satisfactory 
evidence  of  its  development  in  the  later  years 
of  the  Apostolic  age ;  that  this  development 
was  not  simultaneous  and  equal  in  all  parts  of 
Christendom ;  that  it  is  more  especially  con- 
nected with  the  name  of  St.  John  ;  and  that  in 
the  early  years  of  the  second  century  the 
episcopate  was  widely  spread  and  had  taken 
firm  root,  more  especially  in  Asia  Minor  and  in 
Syria.  If  the  evidence  on  which  its  extension 
in  the  regions  east  of  the  y^gean  at  this  epoch 
be  resisted,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  what 
single  fact  relating  to  the  history  of  the 
Christian  Church  during  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century  can  be  regarded  as  established  ; 
for  the   testimony  in  favour  of  this   spread  of 


PREFACE   TO   THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xxxiii 

the  episcopate  is  more  abundant  and  more 
varied  than  for  any  other  institution  or  event 
during  this  period,  so  far  as  I  recollect. 

*'  5.  Ser7?t07t  p reached  before  the  Church  Con- 
crress  at  Wolverhampton,  October  3,  1887. 

"  But  if  this  charge  fails,  what  shall  we  say  of 
her  isolation  ?  Is  not  this  isolation,  so  far  as 
it  is  true,  much  more  her  misfortune  than  her 
fault?  Is  she  to  be  blamed  because  she 
retained  a  form  of  Church  government  which 
had  been  handed  down  in  unbroken  continuity 
from  the  Apostolic  times,  and  thus  a  line  was 
drawn  between  her  and  the  reformed  Churches 
of  other  countries  ?  Is  it  a  reproach  to  her 
that  she  asserted  her  liberty  to  cast  off  the 
accretions  which  had  gathered  about  the 
Apostolic  doctrine  and  practice  through  long 
ages,  and  for  this  act  w^as  repudiated  by  the 
Roman  Church  ?  But  this  very  position, — call 
it  isolation  if  you  will — which  was  her  reproach 
in  the  past,  is  her  hope  for  the  future.  She  was 
isolated  because  she  could  not  consort  with 
either  extreme.  She  was  isolated  because  she 
stood  midway  between  the  two.  This  central 
position  is  her  vantage  ground,  which  fits  her 


xxxiv  PREFACE    TO   THE    THIRD  EDITION, 

to  be  a  mediator,  wheresoever  an  occasion  of 
mediation  may  arise. 

*'  But  this  charge  of  isolation,  if  it  had  any 
appearance  of  truth  seventy  years  ago,  has  lost 
its  force  now. 

"  6.  Durham  Diocesan  Confe7'cnce,  In- 
augural Address,  October,  1887. 

*'  When  I  speak  of  her  religious  position  I 
refer  alike  to  polity  and  to  doctrine.  In  both 
respects  the  negative,  as  well  as  the  positive, 
bearing  of  her  position  has  to  be  considered. 
She  has  retained  the  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment inherited  from  the  Apostolic  times,  while 
she  has  shaken  off  a  yoke,  which  even  in 
medieval  times  our  fathers  found  too  heavy  to 
bear,  and  which  subsequent  developments  have 
rendered  tenfold  more  oppressive.  She  has 
remained  stedfast  in  the  faith  of  Nicaea,  but 
she  has  never  compromised  herself  by  any 
declaration  which  may  entangle  her  in  the 
meshes  of  science.  The  doctrinal  inheritance 
of  the  past  is  hers,  and  the  scientific  hopes  of 
the  future  are  hers.  She  is  intermediate  and 
she  may  become  mediatorial,  when  the  oppor- 
tunity occurs.      It  was  this  twofold  inheritance 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xxxv 

of  doctrine  and  polity  which  I  had  in  view, 
when  I  spoke  of  the  essentials  which  could 
under  no  circumstances  be  abandoned.  Beyond 
this,  it  seems  to  me  that  large  concessions 
might  be  made.  Unity  is  not  uniformity.  .  .  . 
On  the  other  hand  it  would  be  very  short- 
sighted policy — even  if  it  were  not  traitorous 
to  the  truth — to  tamper  with  essentials  and 
thus  to  imperil  our  mediatorial  vantage  ground, 
for  the  sake  of  snatching  an  immediate  increase 
of  numbers. 

*'  7.  Address  on  the  Re-opening  of  the  Chapel, 
Auckland  Castle,  August  i,  1888. 

"  But,  while  we  '  lengthen  our  cords,'  we  must 
*  strengthen  our  stakes'  likewise.  Indeed,  this 
strenetheninor  of  our  stakes  will  alone  enable 
us  to  lengthen  our  cords  with  safety,  when 
the  storms  are  howling  around  us.  We 
cannot  afford  to  sacrifice  any  portion  of  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  ;  we  cannot 
surrender  for  any  immediate  advantages  the 
threefold  ministry  which  we  have  inherited 
from  Apostolic  times,  and  which  is  the  historic 
backbone  of  the  Church.  But  neither  can  we, 
on    the    other    hand,    return    to    the   fables    of 


xxxvi  PREFACE   TO   THE   THIRD  EDITION. 

medievalism  or  submit  to  a  yoke  which  our 
fathers  found  too  grievous  to  be  borne — a  yoke 
now  rendered  a  hundredfold  more  oppressive 
to  the  mind  and  conscience,  weighted  as  it  is 
by  recent  and  unwarranted  impositions  of 
doctrine." 

I  had  afterwards,  in  the  end  of  last  October, 
the  privilege  of  spending  some  days  with  the 
Bishop  at  Auckland  Castle,^  and  he  then  told 
me  that  the  study  of  the  early  records  of 
Christianity  had  left  no  doubt  whatever  in  his 
mind  as  to  the  Apostolic — which,  in  fact,  meant 
the  Divine — origin  of  Episcopacy,  although,  with 
that  large  charity  and  gentleness  which  charac- 
terized him,  he  would  not  presume  to  pass  any 
judgment  on  Christian  communities  differently 
organized.  **  To  their  own  Master,"  he  said, 
''  they  stand  or  fall.    He  knows  what  allowance 

1  The  Bishop  seemed  then  to  have  a  presentiment  that  his  end 
was  not  far  off.  Knowing  how  much  his  time  was  occupied  in 
revising  and  completing  his  great  work  on  the  ApostoHc  Fathers, 
I  proposed  to  pay  him  a  long-promised  visit  at  a  later  period. 
He  wrote  in  reply  that  he  held  his  life  on  so  precarious  a 
tenure  that  I  might  never  see  him  again  if  I  did  not  visit 
him  before  he  went  to  Bournemouth.  It  was  exceedingly 
touching  to  observe  the  unflagging  diligence,  feeble  as  he  was, 
with  which  he  worked  in  his  study  all  day  long,  and  with  such 
gentle  cheerfulness. 


PREFACE    TO   THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xxxvii 

to  make  for  a  multitude  of  things  which  are 
hidden  from  me.  Our  plain  duty  is  to  guard 
faithfully  what  has  been  committed  to  us,  anti 
leave  others  to  Him  who  judgeth  righteously." 
In  its  able  and  friendly  review  of  this  book, 
the  Spectator  expressed  some  apprehension  lest 
my  speculation  on  the  subject  of  pain  in  the 
animal  world  should  encourage  the  careless  or 
deliberate  infliction  of  pain  on  animals.  I 
should,  indeed,  be  grieved  if  I  thought  I  had 
added  one  pang  to  the  mass  of  suffering  in  the 
brute  creation.  But  I  do  not  suppose  that 
persons  who  think  it  justifiable  to  inflict  pain  on 
animals,  for  the  sake  of  scientific  discovery  or  de- 
monstration, give  much  thought  to  the  suffering 
which  they  inflict ;  they  consider  it  insignificant 
as  compared  with  the  end  they  have  in  view. 
My  main  object  in  dealing  with  the  subject  at 
all  was  to  offer  some  relief  to  those — and  they 
are  many — who  find  in  the  existence  of  pain 
apart  from  sin  a  serious  obstacle  to  belief  not 
only  in  Christianity,  but  even  in  a  benevolent 
Creator.  And  my  argument  applies  chiefly  to 
animals  in  the  wild  state.  Domestic  animals, 
as  in  other  matters,  so  also  in  sensitiveness  to 


xxxviii         PREFACE   TO   THE    THIRD   EDITION. 

pain,  are  probably  lifted  out  of  their  natural 
state  by  association  with  man,  and  share  in  some 
degree  man's  liability  to  pain.  But  it  does 
seem  that  animals,  man  included,  suffer  very 
little,  if  at  all,  from  the  sudden  attacks  of  beasts 
of  prey.  I  have  given  some  illustration  of  this 
in  my  second  Lecture,  and  here  I  add  the 
following  remarkable  confirmation  of  my  argu- 
ment, with  which  Sir  Lyon  Playfair  has  kindly 
supplied  me  : — 

"  I    have    known    three    friends    who    were 

partially     devoured     by     wild     beasts,     under 

apparently   hopeless    circumstances    of  escape. 

The  first  was   Livingstone,  the    great  African 

traveller,  who  was  knocked  down  on  his  back 

by   a    lion,    which    began    to    munch    his    arm, 

breaking  it  in  two  places.      He  assured  me  that 

he  felt  neither  fear  nor  pain,  and  that  his  only 

feeling  was  one  of  intense  curiosity  as  to  which 

part    of  his    body  the    lion  would    take    next. 

The  second   case  was  that  of  Rustem   Pacha, 

now    Turkish    Ambassador    in    London,    who 

was  mauled  by  a  bear.       He  also  assured  me 

that  he  had  neither  a  sense  of  pain  nor  fear, 

though  he  felt  excessively   angry  because   the 


PREFACE   TO   THE  THIRD  EDITION.  xxxix 

bear  grunted  with  such  satisfaction  in  munch- 
inir  him.  The  third  case  is  that  of  Sir 
Edward  Bradford,  an  Indian  officer,  now 
occupying  a  high  position  in  the  India  Office. 
He  was  seized  in  a  soHtary  place  by  a  tiger, 
which  held  him  firmly  behind  his  shoulders 
with  one  paw,  and  then  deliberately  devoured 
the  whole  of  his  arm,  beginning  at  his  fingers 
and  ending  at  his  shoulder.  He  was  positive 
that  he  had  no  sensation  of  fear,  but  thinks 
that  he  felt  a  little  pain  when  the  fangs  went 
through  his  hand,  and  is  certain  that  he  felt 
none  during  the  munching  of  his  arm. 

Another  matter  that  calls  for  notice  here 
is  an  objection  made  in  a  friendly  review 
of  my  book  in  the  Guardian  to  the  term 
"adoption,"  w^hich  I  have  applied  (p.  %6)  to 
our  Lord  quoad  His  agency  in  the  work  of 
creation.  To  avoid  all  misconception,  I  have 
substituted  the  word  ''  metaphorically."  At 
the  same  time  I  think  "adoption"  is  a  perfectly 
orthodox  expression  in  the  sense  in  which  I 
have  explained  it  in  this  volume,  and  1  now 
add  the  followincf  reasons. 

As    I   understand   the  matter,   our   Lord,   as 

d 


xl  PREFACE    TO   THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

the  Second   Person  of  the  Trinity,   is  Son   of 
God  by  eternal    generation.     As  Son  of   man 
He    is   Son  of  God  by  the    operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  having  a  human  mother,  but  not 
a  human  father.     In  neither  of  these  cases  can 
the  word  ''adoption"  be  applied  to  Him.     But 
in  the  New  Testament  another  kind  of  sonship 
is  predicated  of  Him.    He  is  called  the  '' primo- 
genitusoidW  creation,"  "among  many  brethren," 
and  *'  of  the  dead  "  (e/c  to)v  veKfxov).     This  kind 
of    sonship    is    elaborately    explained    by    St. 
Athanasius  in  his  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Synka- 
tabasis.       By    our    Lords    condescension,    first 
towards  the  old  creation,  secondly  towards  the 
new,    He    became    the    medium    of    adoption 
between    the    creature    and    the    Creator — the 
Archetype  and   Representative  of  the  created 
universe  in  all  its  ranks.      His  first  primogeni- 
ture as  the  Logos  Prophorikos  in  the  sphere  of 
created  life  was  the  adumbration  of  the  Logos 
Sesarkomemos,    reconciling    all    creation    (not 
fallen  man   only)   to  the   Father.     This  is  St. 
Paul's  doctrine  : — 

"  For    it    pleased    the   Father    that   in    Him 
should  all  the  fulness  dwell ;  and,  having  made 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xli 

peace  through  the  blood  of  His  Cross,  by  Him 
to  reconcile  all  things  unto  Himself;  by  Him, 
I  say,  whether  they  be  the  thini^s  of  the  earth 
or  the  things  in  the  heavens"  (Col.  i.  19,  20). 

Through  the  Incarnate  Logos  the  whole 
creation  was  thus  brought  into  the  adoption 
of  Divine  sonship.  The  chasm  between  the 
Creator  and  the  creature  was  bridged,  for  by 
His  hypostatic  union  the  Eternal  Son  has 
brought  the  whole  creation  into  relationship 
with  the  Father.  The  whole  creation,  in- 
organic, vegetable,  animal,  human,  and  angelic, 
is  now  en  rapport  with  the  Godhead  through 
the  Person  of  the  Incarnate  Son.  St.  Paul 
accordingly  declares  that  the  primal  purpose  of 
the  Incarnation  was  that  the  Father  ''  in  the 
dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  the  times  might 
recapitulate "  (aT/aKecj^aXaLcjcracrOaL)  "  in  Christ 
all  things,  both  the  things  in  the  heavens  and 
those  on  earth"  (Eph.  i.  10). 

As  the  "recapitulation"  of  the  adopted 
creation,  therefore,  Christ  is  '' prirnogaiitiis'' ; 
the  creation  is  summed  up  in  Him,  and 
He  is  thus,  to  quote  Newman's  phrase,  "  the 
first    and    the    representative    of    a    family    of 


xlii  PREFACE   TO   THE    THIRD  EDITION. 

adopted  sons."  The  first  of  a  family  of 
adopted  sons  must  Himself,  in  some  sense,  be 
an  adopted  Son. 

But  let  me  draw  out  Newman's  meaning 
a  little  further.  The  passage  which  I  have 
quoted  Is  from  his  Avians}  I  will  now  make 
some  quotations  from  his  special  discussion 
of  the  '' Primog^Jiitics"  as  expounded  by  St. 
Athanasius,  St.  Augustine,  and  St.  Thomas 
(Tracts,  Theological  and  Ecclesiastical,  pp. 
202-204). 

The  first  act  of  our  Lord's  Synkatabasis, 
according  to  Athanasius,  he  says,  was  to  endow 
creation  with  a  gift  **over  and  above  its  own 
nature,  and  accompanying  that  nature  from  the 
f^i-st — a  Divine  quality  by  which  the  universe, 
in  the  hour  of  its  coming  into  being,  was  raised 
into  something  higher  than  a  Divine  work,  and 
was  in  some  sort  adopted  into  a  Divine  family 
and  son  ship,  so  that  it  was  no  longer  a  yevrjToi^, 
but  a  yevvrjTov,  and  that  by  the  entrance, 
presence,  manifestation  in  it  of  the  Eternal 
Son." 

He  then  quotes  the  following  sentence  from 

1  Last  edition,  p.  429 


PREFACE   TO    THE    THIRD   EDITION.  xliil 

Athanasiiis,  and  adds  the  comment  which  I 
subjoin  : — 

"  By  this  condescension  of  the  Word  the 
creation,  too,  is  made  a  son  through  Him" 
(ftoTTotetrat  y)  /crtcrts). 

*'  Thus,"  says  Newman,  ''He  Who  was  the 
Son  of  God  became,  in  a  certain  sense,  Son 
towards  the  creation  for  the  sake  of  it  and  in 
it.  He  was  born  into  the  universe,  as  after- 
wards He  was  born  of  Mary,  though  not  by 
any  hypostatic  union  with  it.  This  birth  was 
not  a  figure  of  His  eternal  generation,  but  of 
His  incarnation,  a  sort  of  prelude  and  augury 
of  it.  .  .  .  Thus  the  Only-begotten  of  the 
Father  imputes  His  Divine  Sonship  to  the 
universe,  or  rather  makes  the  universe  partaker 
of  His  Divine  fulness,  by  entering,  or  being  (as 
it  may  be  called)  born  into  it ;  not,  of  course, 
as  if  He  became  a  mere  anima  imcndi,  or  put 
Himself  under  the  laws  of  creation,  but  still  by 
a  wonderful  and  adorable  descent,  so  as  to  be,  in 
spite  of  His  supreme  rule,  the  Firstborn  of  His 
creation  and  of  all  that  is  in  it,  as  He  afterwards 
became  the  Firstborn  of  the  predestinate,  and, 
as  St.  Paul  says,  *  is  formed  in  their  hearts.'" 


xliv  PREFACE   TO   THE   THIRD  EDITION. 

In  further  elucidation  of  this  truth  Cardinal 
Newman  quotes  as  follows  from  Athanasius  : — 

''The  Son  is  called  Firstborn,  not  because 
He  ranks  with  creation,  but  in  order  to  signify 
the  framing  and  adoption  of  all  things  through 
Him." 

And  the  Cardinal  adds  in  a  note  : — 

"  ITpwTdro/co?  is  not  an  exact  translation  of 
Primogenitus,  though  Homer,  as  Petavius  says, 
may  use  rt/crw  for  gigno.  It  is  never  used  in 
Scripture  for  '  Only-begotten/  We  never  read 
there  of  the  Firstborn  of  God,  or  of  the 
Father,  but  Firstborn  of  the  creation,  whether 
the  original  creation  or  the  new." 

Of  course  I  should  say,  with  Aquinas, 
*' Dicere  nequaquam  licet''  if  asked  the  naked 
question  "  whether  our  Lord  may  be  called 
Son  of  God  by  adoption."  There  is  nothing 
more  misleading  than  isolated  quotations.  For 
Aquinas  says  also :  *'  In  quantum  solus  est 
verus  et  naturalis  Dei  Filius,  dicitur  unigenitus  ; 
in  quantum  per  assimilationem  ad  Ipsum  alii 
dicuntur  filii  adoptivi,  quasi  metaphorice  [of 
course]  dicitur  esse  primogenitus."  The  plain 
meanincT  of  these  words   is  that  our   Lord  is. 


PREFACE    TO    THE   THIRD   EDITION.  xlv 

quasi  vicfapJiorice,  the  Firstborn  of  a  family  of 
adopted  sons  ;  and  how  He  can  be  this  without 
being  an  adopted  Son  in  any  sense  passes  my 
comprehension.  *' Primogenitus"  imph'es  Son- 
ship,  and  if  the  Sonship  predicated  by  the  term 
is  not  an  adopted  sonship,  by  what  adjective 
arc  we  to  describe  it  ? 

I  submit  that  I  have  now  sufficiently  vindi- 
cated my  use  of  the  expression  which  my 
reviewer  in  the  Guardian  has  courteously  cen- 
sured. I  am  jealous  of  surrendering  to  heresy 
a  mode  of  speech  which  is  intrinsically  de- 
fensible, and  which  is  consecrated  by  the  usage 
of  saints.  But,  in  addition,  I  do  not  under- 
stand in  what  other  sense  our  Lord's  primo- 
geniture in  the  sphere  of  created  life,  and  as 
distinct  from  His  incarnation,  can  be  explained. 

The  able  review  of  this  volume  in  the 
current  number  of  the  CJiiirch  Quarterly 
Review  has  reached  me  too  late  to  make  the 
corrections  which  my  friendly  reviewer  so 
courteously  suggests.  I  offer,  therefore,  a  few 
words  of  explanation  here. 

When  I  say  that  our  Lord,  in  resisting 
temptation,  "withdrew  His  human  nature  from 


xlvi  PREFACE   TO   THE   THIRD  EDITION, 

the  shield  of  the  Divine  personality,"  I  do  not 
mean  to  imply  that  His  humanity  could  for  a 
moment  be  separated  from  the  personality. 
All  I  mean  is  that — to  quote  St.  Paul's  ex- 
pression— He  "  emptied "  Himself  of  super- 
natural aid  in  the  ethical  development  of  His 
manhood.  The  two  natures  were  united 
indissolubly ;  but  the  human  nature  passed 
through  its  probation  on  the  plane  of  humanity  ; 
the  divinity  did  not  shield  it  from  any  part  of 
the  discipline  which  made  our  Lord  perfect 
through  suffering. 

What  I  intended  to  deny  on  p.  loo  was  not 
the  "vicarious  "  character  of  Christ's  death,  but 
the  vindictiveness  of  the  God  of  love — a  view 
which  I  fear  is  not  quite  so  obsolete  as  my 
reviewer  thinks.  And  when  I  call  "  Divine 
justice "  "  the  offspring  of  Divine  love  at  war 
with  sin,"  I  mean  that  justice  is  a  necessary 
attribute  of  Divine  love.  It  is  because  '*  God  is 
love  "  that  He  must  for  ever  be  inflexibly  just. 

I  am  told,  on  what  seems  good  authority, 
that  the  story  of  Jessie  Cammeron  (p.  228)  is 
too  doubtful  to  be  quoted.  Let  my  reference, 
to  it,  therefore,  be  considered  as  cancelled. 


PREFACE    TO    THE    THIRD   EDITJO.\,  xlvii 

The  omission  of  a  Lecture  on  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  been  remarked  upon.  The  exphma- 
tion  is  that  my  term  of  residence  came  to  an 
end  before  I  was  able  to  finish  my  Lectures. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  the  Ripoii  Gazette  and 
Times  for  the  full  and  accurate  reports  of  these 
Lectures,  which  appeared  in  its  pages  as  they 
were  delivered,  and  without  which  their  sub- 
sequent publication  in  this  volume  would  have 
been  impossible. 

RiroN, 

'January ^  iS'jO, 


ir 


CONTENTS 


r  BE1JT5VE  IN  One  God" ^"-^ 

Objection  to  Creeds  —  Creeds  nre  Defensive  Ramparts 
a?:ain8t  tlie  Agg:re8sions  of  Herrsy  —  The  Creed  is 
Comprehensive— Heresy  is  Exclusive— In  what  sense 
Right  Belief  is  necessary  to  Salvation— A  Willing 
Mind  the  Key  to  Faith— Can  Theology  be  a  Science  ? 
—Opinion  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer— Of  Hooker  and 
Bisliop  Butler  — Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's  Admissions— 
Pasteur  on  the  Supernatunil- The  Exibtence  of  God 
—Origin  of  Life  a  IMystery— Sir  W.  Thomson's  Sugges- 
tion—Order implies  Mind— Evidence  of  Order  in  the 
Operations  of  Nature— Evolution  explains  a  Process, 
but  does  not  account  for  it. 

'I  BELIEVE  IN  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty"  .  22-38 
Evidence  of  Unity  in  Nature  implies  One  Creator- 
Facts  which  Darwinism  does  not  explain— IMan's 
Happiness  not  secured  by  Independence— Man  is  a 
Social  Being  needing  Congenial  Fellowship-- Gotl  alone 
sati-sfies,  therefore  the  Father  Almighty— Suffering  in 
Nature  apart  from  Sin— The  Meek  inherit  the  Earth— 
The  Suffering  of  Animals— Dr.  Livingstone's  Opinion 
—Also  Darwin's  and  Wallace's— Duty  of  Kiudiasa  to 
Animals. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGKS 

III.  "Maker  op  Heaven  and  Earth,  and  of  all  Things 

VISIBLE   AND  INVISIBLE  " 39-60 

God  as  Creator— Pantheism  no  Solution  of  tlie  Problems 
of  Existence — Answer  of  Niceiie  Creed;  Creation,  not 
Eternal  Evolution — Creation  out  of  Nothing — Meaning 
of  the  Phrase — God's  Eternal  Vesture— All  Origin  is 
Inexplicable — Creation  the  Chief  Miracle — Creations 
by  Man — Generic  Diifurence  between  Human  Reason 
and  Animal  Instincts — IMan  a  Progressive  Creature— 
The  Lower  Creation  Non-progressive — How  Man  can 
know  God — Illustrations  from  Nature — Problem  of 
existence  of  Evil  and  a  Beneficent  Creator — St.  Augus- 
tine on  the  Origin  of  Evil — Evil  the  correlative  of 
Free  Will — Possible  Solution  hereafter. 

IV.  "The  Father  Almighty" 61-81 

Personality  of  God — Matthew  Arnold's  Opinion — Appeal 
to  Old  Testament — Abraham  and  Jacob — Joseph's  Idea 
of  God — Moses  at  the  Burning  Bush — Other  Examples 
of  Jewish  Belief — Old  Testament  Descriptions  of  God 
imply  a  Person — The  Old  Testament  and  Doctrine  of 
the  Trinity — Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  implied,  but  not 
revealed— All  Truths  revealed  gradually — Illustra- 
tive Examples  —  Trinity  oi'  Persons  and  Unity  of 
Substance— The  Mutual  Relations  of  the  Divine  Per- 
sons—The Sonship  of  Christ— The  Sabellian  Trinity. 

V.  "And  in  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Only-begotten 
Son  of  God,  .  ,  .  Who  for  us  Men,  and  for  our 
Salvation,  came  down  froji  Heaven  "   .    .    .    82-101 

Man  demands  a  Mediator  and  a  Future  Life— Goethe's 
Complaint— His  Conduct  to  Women— An  Almighty 
Father  not  enough  for  Man's  Needs— Instinct  of  Prayer 
universal — Prayer  implies  Attractive  Force — Sacrifice 
a  Universal  Custom — Human  Sacrifices — What  Sacri- 
fice implies— Man's  Thirst  for  Knowledge— Difi'erence 


CONTENTS.  U 

PAG  K3 

of  Love  of  Beauty  in  Man  and  Animals— Sorrow  for 
tho  Dead— I\Ian  needs  a  Mediator — Job's  cry  for  a  Days- 
man—The De.siro  of  uU  Nations— Thu  Incarnation  in 
relation  to  tho  Fall. 

VI.  "And   was  incaukate    by    tue    Holy    Ghost    of    the 

Virgin  Mary  " 102-122 

Miraculous  Basis  of  Christianity— Laws  of  Nature  not 
Causes — The  Laws  of  Nature  mi-r*  ly  observed  Se- 
quences-Nature implies  Creative  Will— ^Man  rules 
Physical  Forces,  and  has  Power  over  Nature— Action 
at  a  Distance— All  Action  is  Action  at  a  Distance — 
How  Man's  Will  influences  the  Will  of  God— Con- 
tinuity  of  Nature  and  Christ's  Miraculous  Conception 
— Evolution  and  Special  Cn  at  ions — IMosaic  Account 
and  Evolution — Christ's  Miraculous  Conception  no 
Violation  of  Natural  Law — Virgin  Births  now — Two 
Natures  in  Christ,  but  only  One  Person. 

VIL  "And  was  made  Man" 123-152 

Son  of  IMan,  not  of  a  Man— Clirist  took  Adam's  Nature 
without  its  Personality- Personality  not  transmissible 
—Christ's  Humanity  and  ours— The  same,  yet  different 
— Illustrative  Examples— A  Sinless  Body  possesses 
Disease-expellin;?  Virtue— Our  Lord's  Body  always  a 
Spiritual  Body — Ho  had  no  Special  Character— Sig- 
nificance of  "Son  of  Man"— Renan's  Admission- 
Christ  and  other  Teachers— His  Self-assertion  implies 
His  Divinity— Clirist  is  our  Example,  though  He  was 
Impeccalile  —  Christ's  Sinlessness  compatible  with 
Temptation— Temptation  real,  though  Victory  certain 
— But  Victory  not  necessarily  known  to  the  Tempted — 
Moral  Discipline  of  Christ— What  "  Theotokos  "  con- 
notes— Hooker  on  the  Doctrine  of  thu  Incarnation — 
"  Communioatio  Idiomatum." 


lii  CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

VIII.  "  And  was  crucified  also  for  us  under  Pontius  Pilate  ; 

He  suffered  and  was  buried" 153-187 

The  Atonement — False  Views  regarding  the  Atonement 
— The  True  Doctrine — The  Unity  of  Nature— St. 
Paul's  Exposition  of  the  Atonement — The  Father  seen 
in  the  Son — Man  the  Copula  of  Creation — INIan's  Tri- 
partite Nature  the  Basis  of  the  Atonement — Christ's 
Atonement  coextensive  with  Creation — Sin  and  Ketri- 
bution— Hereditary  Guilt— Hell  is  within  tlie  Sinner 
— Love  is  Inexorable — Divine  Justice  the  Offspring  of 
Divine  Love— Rationale  of  the  Innocent  suffering  for 
the  Guilty— Sin  alienates  from  God— The  Piansom  paid 
by  Christ— Humanity  deified  in  Christ — Meaning  of 
Predestination— Attractive  Power  of  the  Atonement — 
Quotation  from  Napoleon  —  The  Atonement  and 
Woman— Humanity  ennobled  by  the  Atonement — 
Sympathy  created  by  it  between  Man  and  Nature — 
Internal  Conflict  in  Human  Nature. 

IX.  "And  the  third  Day  He    rose    again   according    to 

THE  Scriptures" 188-214 

Christ  must  have  risen- Metaphysical  Necessity— Moral 
Necessity,  demanded  by  Universal  Instincts — The  Order 
of  Nature— Ecclesiastical  Miracles— Dr.  IMozley's  View 
Untenable  in  Eeason  and  Policy— Miracles  postulate 
the  Order  of  Nature— Dr.  Carpenter's  Objection  under- 
mines his  Argument — Miracles  and  Evolution — No 
Antecedent  Objection — Attack  on  Resurrection  for 
alleged  Defective  Evidence— Objections  examined— 
Alleged  Prepossession  —  Circumstantial  Evidence  — 
Cumulative  Evidence— St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter  on  the 
Resurrection  —  Hume's  Formula  fatal  to  Scientific 
Discoveries  —  Fallacy  of  demanding  Unreasonable 
Evidence— Jesus  Divine  or  Impossible. 


CONTENrS.  Ilii 

PAOKH 

X.  "And  ascended  into  Heaven" 215-217 

Christ's  Resurrection  involves  His  Ascension  —  The 
Spiritual  World  not  measured  by  Distance — Scriptural 
Illustrations  —  Explanation  of  some  Gospel  Discre- 
pancies—Tho  Two  Worlds  divided  by  Difference  of 
Mode— What  Physical  Science  says— Theory  of  Vision 
—Phenomena  of  Sound  —  Testimony  of  Tyndall — 
Abnormal  Perceptivity  in  Certain  Mental  States- 
Teaching  of  Scripture  and  Science  converge— IVrysteriea 
of  Science  and  Mysteries  of  Faith— Scientific  Dis- 
coveries corroborate  Scripture  —  Erroneous  Ideas  of 
Heaven  contrasted  with  Scriptural — Various  Spheres 
of  being  in  Heaven— IMan's  Connection  with  First  and 
Second  Adam — "  The  Spirit  Quickeneth  "  in  all  Forms 
of  Life— The  Real  Presence  a  Reasonable  Doctrine — 
How  Christ  becomes  the  Food  of  His  People. 

XI.   "I  BELIEVE  one  Catholic  AND  AposTOLic  Church  "  .     248-289 

Notes  of  the  Church — The  Church  is  a  Polity — A  Divine 
Institution — Guardian  of  Revealed  Truth — The  Church 
cannot  make  additions  to  the  Faith — Homoousion  an 
Example — Unguarded  Creeds  run  to  Seed — Stuart 
Mill's  Opinion — Original  Constitution  of  the  Church 
— Dr.  Lightfoot's  View  vindicated  by  Analogy- The 
Aaronic  Priesthood — The  Rationale  of  Sacerdotalism 
— Why  God  is  a  Consuming  Fire— Man  "  in  a  cleft  of 
the  Rock" — Jewish  Priesthood  transitional— Christian 
Ministry  likewise — Priesthood  of  Laity  always  recog- 
nized— God's  cure  for  selfi.shness— Christians  are  a 
Family— Pergonal  influence— Slow  progress  of  Chris- 
tianity— Apcistolical  Succession— Objections  answered 
-Defective  Evidence— Fraiid  or  Error  possible— Objec- 
tion proves  too  much — Moral  Evidence  enough- Moral 
Evidence  and  Science — Non-Episcopal  Communions — 
Episcopacy  and  History — Non-Epiacopucy  and  Papal- 
ibm— Loyalty  to  Truth  true  Charity— Perfection  not 


liv  CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

promised  io  the  Church  Militant — Roman  Doctrine 
tested  by  Science  and  History  —  Seemiug  Failure, 
Real  Success,  the  Mark  of  God's  Works. 

XII.  '*The  Life  of  the  World  to  come" 290-323 

Life  Eternal  contrasted  with  Life  Temporal— Morality 
and  Dogma— Best  Form  of  Government— Character 
moulded  by  the  Object  of  Homage— Islam  an  Ex- 
ample—Palgrave's  Testimony— Rare  Exceptions  prove 
the  Rule— Morality  of  Christianity  depends  on  its 
Doctrines — Christians  and  Muslims  moulded  by  their 
Creeds — Athanasian  Creed  explained  and  illustrated 
— R.  H.  Hutton  on  Influence  of  Creed  on  Character — 
Why  « Before  all  thiugs"?  — "Shall  perish  ever- 
lastingly " — Meaning  of  the  phrases  "  A  Great  Gulf 
fixed  " — "  That  he  might  go  to  his  own  Place  " — "  To 
every  Seed  his  own  Body  " — The  Final  Crisis — Arian 
and  Arius  connote  different  ideas — Test  of  Moral  Con- 
dition— Heresy  defined — Sins  of  Ignorance — Critical 
Moments — Bane  of  Earthly  Happiness. 

Appendix 324-343 

A  Review  of  "The  Unseen  Universe  "—Creation  as 
explained  by  St.  Augustine,  Origen,  Aquinas,  and 
Cousin. 


I. 

*'  I  BELIEVE  ix\  One  God.'* 

OBJECTION   TO   CREEDS. 

J'efore  we  enter  into  any  detailed  examination  of 
the  Nicene  Creed  it  may  be  well  to  consider  an 
objection  that  meets  us  on  the  threshold.  "Why," 
we  sometimes  hear  it  asked,  "  should  we  have  creeds 
at  all  ?  Are  they  necessary  ?  Are  they  not,  on  the 
contrary,  mischievous — putting  fetters  on  the  mind 
and  abrido-inor  the  area  of  its  free  exercise  ?  Are 
they  not,  in  fact,  a  fence  set  up  by  artful  theologians 
to  bar  access  to  the  salubrious  common  of  free  thought 
ill  order  to  keep  mankind  in  the  bondage  of  priest- 
craft ?  Are  not  creeds  the  fruitful  parents  of 
divisions  among  Christians  ?  And  would  not  the 
n])olition  of  creeds  help  to  reunite  the  divided  sects 
of  Christendom  into  one  family  ?  Is  not  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  a  sufficient  rule  of  conduct  ? "  Now 
undoubtedly  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  creed  is  a 
fence,  and  that  it  does  in  a  sense  limit  the  exercise 
of  private  judgment.     A    creed    deals    in  definitions, 

B 


2  CREEDS  ARE  DEFENSIVE  RAMPARTS 

and  a  definition  implies  boundaries.  Let  us  look 
again  at  the  illustration  of  a  common.  There  was 
a  time  when  the  commons  of  England  were  all  un- 
fenced.  People  could  roam  over  them  without  let 
or  hindrance,  no  one  forbidding  them  and  no  fence 
obstructing  them.  But  in  process  of  time  men  began 
to  encroach  upon  the  common  land.  A  man  here 
and  a  man  there  took  a  piece  of  land  and  fenced  it 
round  and  appropriated  it  to  his  own  use,  and  the 
common  became  smaller  and  smaller  till  at  last  it 
disappeared  altogether ;  and  the  people  at  large 
were  thus  deprived  of  their  common  property.  In 
this  way  a  great  many  of  the  commons  of  England 
have  been  lost,  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  popu- 
lation in  general.  And  therefore,  to  prevent  further 
depredations,  it  became  necessary  to  put  fences  round 
commons  that  were  in  danger  of  spoliation ;  not,  of 
course,  for  the  purpose  of  narrowing  their  area,  but 
in  order  to  guard  their  latitude ;  not  for  the  purpose 
of  driving  any  one  out  who  had  a  right  to  be  in, 
but  in  order  to  guard  the  general  freedom  and  enjoy- 
ment of  all  those  to  whom  the  common  belonged. 

There  you  see  as  in  a  parable  the  historical  explana- 
tion of  the  formation  of  the  creeds  of  Christendom. 
Doubtless  it  would  have  been  a  happier  thing  if  the 
Church   had   been   able   to   do   without   any   formal 


AGAINST  THE  AGGRESSIONS  OF  HERESY.  3 

ci'L'c'cl,  and  it  was  with  pain  and  reluctance  that  sliu 
accepted  the  necessity  which  heresy  forced  upon  lier. 
Until  the  time  of  Arius  there  was  no  universal 
creed — nothing  more  than  the  baptismal  formula,  a 
short  expression  of  belief  in  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit.  But  Arius  appeared  upon  the  scene  and 
began  his  war  of  negations  and  limitations.  Not 
content  with  the  prevalent  belief  in  Jesus  Christ  as 
the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  he  set  himself  to 
define,  to  deny,  to  circumscribe  and  diminish  the 
common  area  of  Christian  belief.  He  argued  that 
Jesus  was  not  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father, 
and  when  pushed  dialectically  into  a  corner,  he  boldly 
asserted  that  our  Lord  was  "  made  of  a  substance 
which  once  was  not,"  and  therefore  that  "  there  was 
a  time  when  He  was  not " — in  other  words,  that 
He  was  a  creature,  though  "  the  highest  of  the 
creatures."  This  was  at  once  a  denial  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  and  a  return  to  the  old  Pagan  idolatry, 
with  all  its  degrading  pollutions.  For  Arius  paid 
the  homage  of  divine  worship  to  Christ  while  deny- 
ing His  essential  and  personal  Godhead;  which  is 
i<lolatry.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  Arianism  wjis 
a  narrowing  process.  It  proposed  to  take  away  a 
large  portion  of  the  common  heritage  of  Christendom 
and  to  build  upon  it  a  temple  to  idolatry. 


4  THE   CREED  IS  COMPREHENSIVE. 

How  did  the  Church  meet  the  Arian  heresy  ?  By 
expelling  the  trespasser  and  restoring  the  common  to 
its  rightful  owners,  the  universal  body  of  the  people. 
And  to  prevent  any  further  attempt  at  spoliation,  the 
Church  put  a  fence  round  the  common,  with  a  con- 
spicuous notice  to  warn  off  intruders  ;  in  other  words, 
she  drew  up  the  Nicene  Creed  and  inserted  into  it  a 
definition  ("  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father  ") 
which  effectually  excluded  Arianism.  The  creed  was 
thus  in  its  origin  and  purpose  purely  defensive — a 
rampart  to  guard  the  body  of  revealed  truth  for  the 
use  of  the  Christian  community  throughout  the  world. 
It  is  a  mistake  therefore  to  suppose  that  the  Nicene 
Creed  (and  the  observation  applies  to  the  other  creeds) 
was  intended  to  narrow  the  basis  of  the  Church.  The 
obvious  purpose  of  such  a  symbol  or  passport  of 
admission  into  a  Church  must  be  to  include  as  many 
as  possible ;  and  this  not  so  much  by  precise  and 
logical  statements  of  what  the  believer  must  profess, 
as  by  negativing  statements  which  tend  to  break  up 
the  Church  into  a  number  of  sects.^     The  Catholic 

"  The  Church's  definitions  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  from  their  origin  and  design,  do  not  claim  to  be  regarded  as 
religio-philosophic  and  perfect  explanations  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
Trinity,  but  as  ecclesiastical  and  social  protests  against  definite  and 
matured  degenerate  forms — mutilations  and  caricatures  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  :  protests  having  their  origin  in  historical 
circumstances." — Lange's  Positiv  Dogmatik,  p.  136. 


HERESY  IS  EXCLUSIVE.  5 

Church  is  necessarily  more  comprehensive  tlian  any 
community  of  men  who  dissent  on  particular  grounds. 
The  dogma  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  witli 
the  Father,  for  example,  comprehended  as  many  as 
could  be  embraced  within  the  terms  of  the  Christian 
profession.  It  was  the  heterodox  parties  that  com- 
menced the  war  of  limitations  and  sought  by  defini- 
tions to  narrow  the  Church  of  Christ;  whereas  the 
orthodox  party  merely  swept  away  these  definitions 
and  fenced  the  field  of  faith  with  counter-definitions 
to  mark  and  protect  its  boundaries.  Examine  every 
heresy  known  to  history,  and  you  will  find  in  every 
case  that  it  has  tried  to  narrow  the  field  of  belief,  to 
cut  off  somethinfr  from  the  common  stock,  to  contract 
the  circle  of  the  Christian  Faith,  In  truth,  all  sciences 
have  their  dogmas — that  is,  ultimate  truths  which  the 
mind  accepts  at  first  on  trust — on  the  authority  of 
others — and  afterwards  proves  to  its  own  reason,  if 
its  knowledge  and  capacity  enable  it.  Freedom  of 
thought  does  not  mean  an  unlimited  right  to  accept 
any  conclusion  ;  it  means  liberty  to  work  out  the  right 
conclusion.  Freedom  of  thought  is  not  restrained  by 
the  dogmas  of  mathematics;  yet  it  would  be  an 
ofience  against  reason  to  suppose  that  any  problem  of 
Euclid  admits  of  more  than  one  solution.  A  man 
inny    have    a    difficulty    in    solving    a    mathematical 


6  IN  WHAT  SENSE  RIGHT  BELIEF 

problem  for  himself  without  doubting  that  there  is  a 
solution,  and  that  a  particular  solution  is  the  only- 
true  one.  Difficulty  and  doubt  are  not  the  same 
thing ;  and  freedom  is  opposed  to  force,  not  to  mental 
certainty.^  The  most  distinguished  names  in  theology 
have  also  been  remarkable  for  their  intellectual 
fecundity,  their  power  of  impregnating  the  minds  of 
successive  generations  with  the  seeds  of  great  ideas 
which  have  borne  fruit  in  their  season  and  given  a 
fresh  impulse  to  the  pursuit  of  truth.  It  will  suffice 
to  give  as  typical  examples  the  names  of  Athanasius, 
Augustine,  and  our  own  Bishop  Butler.  Of  course 
analogies  merely  suggest  resemblance,  not  identity. 
The  dogmas  of  theology  are  not,  like  the  conclusions 
of  the  exact  sciences,  capable  of  mathematical  demon- 
stration. They  rest  mainly  on  probable  evidence  and 
have  their  strongest  roots  in  the  moral  part  of  our 
nature.  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they 
shall  see  God."  "  If  any  man  hath  the  will  to  do  His 
will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of 
God." 

But  is  belief  in  the  creed  of  Christendom  necessary 
to  salvation  ?  Yes  and  no.  The  answer  to  that  ques- 
tion depends  upon  what  we  mean  by  "  necessary  to 

^  See  Mr.  Gladstone's  Btaie  in  its  Relations  with  the  Church,  3rd 
edition,  p.  162. 


7S  NECESSARY   TO  SALVATION.  7 

Siilvation."     Is  it,  for  example,  necessary   to  eternal 
salvation  that  everybody  in  the  Christian  Church  who 
hoars  tlie  Athanasian  Creed  said,  and  who  takes  part 
in  saying  it,  should  have  a  clear  intellectual  appre- 
hension of  the  words  he  hears  or  says?     Certainly 
not.     Very  few  people  have  a  clear  intellectual  appre- 
hension of   any   of   the  creeds.     What  is  meant  by 
saying  that  a  right  creed  is  necessary  to  salvation  is 
this:    that   if    we    cherish    erroneous   conceptions   of 
Almighty  God,  we  shall   form  for  ourselves  a  false 
type  of  character,  in  other  words,  a  character  unsuited 
to  the  society  and  occupations  of  heaven,  because  our 
character  is  moulded  by  the  conceptions  we  form  of 
the  object  of  our  love  and  worship.     If  you  intended 
to  leave  this  country  and  make  your  future  home  in 
a   distant    foreign    land,  you  would   naturally    learn 
beforehand  all  you  could  about  its  climate,  its  produc- 
tions, its  inhabitants  and  sovereign— their  language, 
laws,  customs,  character.     But  if  through  your  own 
folly  or  carelessness  your   information  on   all   these 
points  was  false ;  if  the  language  differed  from  that 
which  you  had  learnt,  and  the  laws,  customs,  character 
of  sovereign  and  people,  as  well  as  the  climate  and 
productions  of   the  country,  were  quite  contrary  to 
what  you  had   expected — do  you  not   see  that   you 
would  arrive  in  your  future  home  very  badly  equipped 


8  A    WILLING  MIND   THE  KEY  TO  FAITH. 

for  the  enjoyment  of  it  ?  In  that  sense  a  right  creed 
is  necessary  for  salvation.  But  then  the  essence  of 
right  faith  is  a  right  direction  of  the  will.  Where  the 
will  is  directed  aright  God  makes  allowance  for  any 
intellectual  error ;  if  the  error  is  not  wilful  He  does 
not  hold  us  accountable  for  it.  Now  no  mortal  man 
can  have  a  perfectly  clear  and  complete  apprehension 
of  Almighty  God.  His  existence  and  attributes  are 
truths  too  vast  and  complex  for  any  human  mind  to 
apprehend  adequately,  or  any  human  language  to  ex- 
press completely  and  accurately ;  and  therefore  all  our 
creeds,  all  our  prayers,  all  our  discourses  are  at  the 
best  nothing  more  than  approximations  to  what  we 
believe  to  be  the  truth.  But  in  so  far  as  we  direct 
our  thouo^hts  ari^i^ht,  in  so  far  as  we  do  our  best  to 
have  right  notions  of  Almighty  God,  in  so  far  as  we 
make  the  best  use  of  the  opportunities  which  He  has 
placed  within  our  reach,  and  we  ourselves  do  not  place 
any  barrier  in  the  way  of  believing  and  holding  the 
truth,  then  God  accepts  the  will  for  the  deed.  Let  me 
refer  you  again  to  our  Lord's  own  words:  "If  any 
man  hath  the  will  to  do  the  will  of  God,  he  shall 
know  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God."  That  is  to 
say  that  the  essence  of  a  right  faith  consists  in 
a  willing  mind ;  where  that  is  present  God  holds  no 
man  responsible  for  an  error  of   genuine  ignorance. 


CA.V  THEOLOGY  BE   A   SCIENCE  1  9 

Therefore  all  that  is  really  necessary  in  holding 
and  recitinor  the  creeds  of  the  Church  is  that  a  man 
should,  accordinnr  to  the  Lest  of  his  ability  and 
opportunities,  believe  the  words  he  uses  in  the 
t^oneral  sense  in  which  they  have  always  been  under- 
stood by  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  not  necessary 
that  he  should  have  a  perfectly  accurate  know- 
ledn^e  of  the  scientific  language  of  theology.  For 
example,  in  order  to  be  a  loyal  subject  of  the  Queen, 
it  is  not  necessary  that  a  man  should  have  a  complete 
mastery  of  the  technical  language  of  constitutional 
law,  such  as  that  "  the  king  is  immortal,"  "  the  king 
can  do  no  wroncr."  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  have 
a  loyal  disposition,  and  to  accept  the  language  of 
constitutional  law  in  its  authoritative  traditional 
sense. 

So  much  as  to  creeds  in  general.  Let  us  now  come 
to  particulars  and  consider  the  first  article  of  the 
Creed  :  "  I  believe  in  one  God."  These  words  afford 
sufficient  matter  for  reflection  during  the  time  at  my 
disposal. 

But  we  are  met  at  starting  by  a  preliminary 
objection.  God,  we  are  told,  is  "unknowable,"  and 
tlieology — that  is,  a  science  which  professes  to  deal 
with  "  the  unknowable  " — is  a  contradiction  in  terms, 
since  science  implies  knowledge.     But  what  does  the 


lO  OPINION  OF  MR.   HERBERT  SPENCER. 

Agnostic  mean  by  pronouncing  God  to  be  "  unknow- 
able "  ?  Not  that  nothing  is  or  can  be  known  about 
a  Supreme  Being,  but  that  His  nature  cannot  be 
comprehended.  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  who  is  one  of 
the  ablest  and  most  candid  of  Ag-nostic  teachers,  writes 
as  follows : — 

"  Respecting  the  nature  of  the  universe,  we  seem 
committed  to  certain  unavoidable  conclusions.  The 
objects  and  actions  surrounding  us,  not  less  than  the 
phenomena  of  our  own  consciousness,  compel  us  to 
ask  a  cause ;  in  our  search  for  a  cause  we  discover 
no  resting-place  until  we  arrive  at  the  hypothesis  of 
a  First  Cause ;  and  we  have  no  alternative  but  to 
regard  this  First  Cause  as  Infinite  and  Absolute."  ^ 

And  then  Mr.  Spencer  goes  on  to  argue  that  there 
can  be  no  science  concernino:  this  First  Cause,  since  he 
must  remain  for  ever  "  inscrutable." 

"  If  religion  and  science,"  he  says,  "  are  to  be  recon- 
ciled, the  basis  of  reconciliation  must  be  the  deepest, 
widest,  and  most  certain  of  all  facts — that  the  Power 
which  the  universe  manifests  to  us  is  utterly  in- 
scrutable." 

He  contrasts  religion  and  science,  you  will  observe, 
as  two  things  which  are  separate  and  distinct,  and 
asserts  that  they  can  never  be  reconciled  except  by 

*  First  Principles,  Ch.  ii. 


OF  HOOKER  AND  BISHOP  BU71.ER.  ii 

confession  on  the  part  of  religion  that  tlic  f,aiU'  between 
tlii'iu  is  impassable,  because  the  subject-matter  of 
relii^ion  is  "inscrutable."  All  Christians  would  of 
course  admit  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  God  is 
"inscrutable."  In  fact,  theologians,  from  Job  down- 
wards, have  insisted  on  that  truth  quite  as  strenuously 
as  any  Agnostic. 

"  Dangerous  it  were  for  the  feeble  brain  of  man," 
snj^s  Hooker,  "to  wade  far  into  the  doings  of  the 
Most  High ;  Whom  although  to  know  be  life,  and  joy 
to  make  mention  of  His  Name,  yet  our  soundest  know- 
ledge is  to  know  that  we  know  Him  not  as  He  is, 
neither  can  know  Him ;  and  our  safest  eloquence  con- 
cerning Him  is  our  silence,  when  we  confess  without 
confession  that  His  glory  is  inexplicable,  His  great- 
ness above  our  capacity  and  reach.  He  is  above, 
and  we  upon  earth  ;  therefore  it  behoveth  our  word.s 
to  be  wary  and  few." 

But  if  we  can  have  no  science  of  anything  which  is 
inscrutable,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  we  can  have  any 
science  at  all. 

"Creation,"  says  Bishop  Butler,  "is  absolutely  an<l 
entirely  out  of  our  depth,  and  beyond  the  extent  of 
our  utmost  reach.  And  yet  it  is  as  certain  that  God 
made  the  world  as  it  is  certain  that  effects  must  have 
a  cause.     It  is  indeed,  in  general,  no  more  than  effects 


12  MR.   HERBERT  SPENCER'S  ADMISSIONS 

that  the  most  knowing  are  acquainted  with ;  for 
as  to  causes,  they  are  as  entirely  in  the  dark  as  the 
most  ignorant." 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  himself  would  hardly  quarrel 
with  that  statement  of  the  case ;  for  he  argues  that 
infinite  space  and  endless  time,  and  matter,  in  its 
essential  properties,  are  all  inscrutable.  "  Matter,"  he 
says,  though  we  can  see  and  handle  it,  "  in  its  ultimate 
nature  is  as  incomprehensible  as  space  and  time." 
Yet,  for  all  that,  we  have  a  science  of  matter,  and 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  is  one  of  its  foremost  expounders. 

Why,  then,  should  the  fact  of  God  being  inscrutable 
preclude  the  possibility  of  our  having  some  knowledge 
of  Him  and  arransdno^  that  knowledo^e  in  scientific 
order  ?  If  we  can  learn  a  great  deal  about  the 
material  creation  without  being  able  to  comprehend 
"  its  ultimate  nature,"  why  may  we  not  learn  a  great 
deal  about  the  Creator  while  we  confess  that  He  is 
past  finding  out  ?  Very  few  are  the  words  in  which 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  states  all  that  he  professes 
to  know  of  the  First  Cause;  yet  those  few  words 
contain  a  whole  system  of  theology.  "  It  is  absolutely 
certain,"  he  says,  "  that  we  are  in  the  presence  of  an 
Infinite  Eternal  Energy  from  which  all  things 
proceed."  To  the  eye  of  instructed  reason  that  brief 
admission  will  draw  after  it  a  whole  body  of  divinity 


PASTEUR   ON  THE  SUPERNATURAL.  13 

as  surely  as  to  the  eye  of  the  anatomist  a  single  bone 
will  reveal  the  structure  and  character  of  the  body 
to  which  it  belonged.  "  The  man  who  proclaims  tlic 
existence  of  the  Infinite,"  says  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  lights — in  his  own  department  the  most 
distinguished  light — of  physical  science — 

"  The  man  who  proclaims  the  Infinite  (and  no  one 
can  avoid  it)  accumulates  in  that  aflSrmation  more 
of  the  supernatural  than  can  be  found  in  all  the 
miracles  recorded  in  all  religions.  For  the  notion 
of  the  Infinite  has  this  double  character — that  it  is 
at  once  self-evident  and  incomprehensible.  When 
that  notion  masters  our  mind,  nothing  is  left  for  us 
but  to  prostrate  ourselves  in  adoration."  ^ 

If  "  it  is  absolutely  certain,"  as  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer 
assures  us,  that  behind  the  veil  of  visible  phenomena 
there  is  "  the  presence  of  an  Energy,"  which  is 
"  Infinite,  Eternal,  and  from  which  all  things  pro- 
ceed," Reason  suggests  at  least,  if  it  does  not  demand, 
the  additional  attributes  of  intelligence  and  will ;  and 
intelligence  and  will  imply  personality;  and  person- 
ality implies  social  capacities;^  and  social  capacities 

*  Speech  of  M.  Pasteur  on  his  admission  into  tho  AcaJoiny. 
See  mhats  of  April  28,  1882. 

'  Is  it  not  80  ?  Do  we  not  naturally  and  spontaneously  apsociato 
rapacity  for  social  intercourse  with  our  idea  of  person  ?  Would  not 
tho  word  bo  robbed  of  much  that  it  now  connotes  if  we  were  to 


14  THE  EXISTENCE   OF  GOD. 

in  a  perfect  Being  imply  the  means  of  gratifying 
them  ;  and  the  means  of  gratifying  them  imply  the 
coexistence  in  Mr.  Spencer's  "  Infinite,  Eternal  Energy" 
of  more  than  one  Person.  So  that  our  Agnostic 
philosopher's  definition  of  his  First  Cause  starts  us,  by 
logical  inference,  on  our  way  towards  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  is  a  truth  of  Revelation. 

So  much,  then,  as  to  the  alleo^ed  unfitness  of 
theology  for  admission  into  the  hierarchy  of  the 
sciences  on  the  ground  of  its  subject-matter  being 
"  unknowable."  In  so  far  as  the  objection  has  any 
validity  at  all,  it  is  valid,  in  greater  or  less  degree, 
aofainst  all  sciences.  Our  knowleds^e  of  them  all  is 
only  partial  and  relative;  in  no  case  absolute  and 
complete. 

And  now  let  us  come  to  the  facts  of  the  case  with 
regard  to  our  belief  in  a  God  Who  is  infinite,  yet 
personal;  Who  pervades  the  universe,  and  yet  is  outside 
of  it  and  independent  of  it.  First  of  all  consider  the 
mystery  of  life.  It  is  one  of  the  greatest  mysteries 
with  which  science  has  to  deal.  At  one  time,  as  we 
know,  this  earth  which  we  inhabit  was  nothing  else 
but  a  molten  globe  of  fire,  a  mass  of  incandescent 
gases  on  which  no  kind  of  life  with  which  science  is 

apply  it  to  a  being  incapable  of  imparting  or  receiving  either 
thought  or  feeling  ? 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE  A   MYSTERY.  1 5 

acquainted  could  exist  for  a  single  moment.  Then 
the  surface  of  our  planet  cooled,  and  there  was  fonned 
upon  it  wli.it  is  known  in  iron  manufacturing  districts 
as  slaj; ;  and  that  cooled  surface  of  the  earth  is  now 
covered  with  an  infinite  variety  of  life.  Where  did 
that  life  come  from  ?  It  is  one  of  the  incontestable 
conclusions  of  modern  science  that  life  must  proceed 
from  life;  that  there  is  actually  no  such  thing  as 
spontaneous  generation.  I  will  quote  a  few  passages 
from  some  of  the  leadinir  men  amonnf  our  scientific 
teachers  on  that  question.  Professor  Huxley  says  : 
"The  present  state  of  our  knowledge  furnishes  us 
with  no  link  between  the  living  and  the  not-living." 
Sir  William  Thomson,  another  of  the  great  teachers 
of  physical  science,  who  some  years  ago  was  President 
of  the  British  Association,  uses  these  words :  "  Dead 
matter  cannot  become  livinfj  matter  without  cominor 
under  the  influence  of  matter  previously  alive.  This 
seems  to  me  as  sure  a  teaching  of  science  as  the  law 
of  gravitation.  I  am  ready  to  adopt  as  an  article  of 
scientific  faith,  true  through  all  space  and  through  all 
time,  that  life  proceeds  from  life  and  nothing  but 
life."  Dr.  Tyndall  has,  by  a  series  of  beautiful 
experiments,  entirely  demolished  Dr.  Bastian's  so- 
called  evidence  in  favour  of  spontaneous  generation. 
That  is  the  teaching  of  science — that  life   proceeds 


i6  5/^    W.    THOMSON'S  SUGGESTION. 

from  life  and  nothing  but  life.  The  great  German 
philosopher  Kant  uses  these  words  :  "  Give  me  life 
and  matter  and  I  will  explain  the  formation  of  a 
world ;  but  give  me  matter  only  and  I  cannot  explain 
the  formation  of  a  caterpillar."  All  therefore  that 
physical  science  can  tell  us  is  that  life  invariably 
comes  from  previous  life.  Well,  where  did  that 
preceding  life  come  from  ?  Sir  William  Thomson, 
from  whom  I  have  just  quoted,  tried  his  hand  at  a 
solution  some  years  ago.  He  suggested  that  life,  the 
primordial  germ  of  life  on  our  planet,  arrived  on  an 
aerolite  shot  from  some  distant  orb.  But  the  suo^ofes- 
tion  was  rejected  by  men  of  science  as  an  hypothesis 
for  which  there  was  not  a  vestige  of  evidence.  If  it 
were  true  it  would  leave  us  where  we  were;  for 
where  did  the  germ  of  life  on  the  aerolite  come  from  ? 
Sir  William  Thomson's  guess  was  thus  no  solution  of 
the  mystery  at  all ;  it  pushed  it  a  little  further  back, 
but  left  it  a  mystery  still.  Therefore  we  are  driven 
to  the  conclusion  that  life  upon  this  planet  in  all  its 
vast  variety  of  forms  came  from  some  life  which 
itself  was  not  created  at  all.  Your  own  reason,  if  you 
follow  its  workings,  drives  you  back  to  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer's  conclusion,  that  all  the  phenomena  of  the 
created  universe  proceed  from  an  uncreated  cause — 
an  Infinite,  Eternal,  living  Energy  which  itself  had 


ORDER  I M PLIES  M2XD.  17 

no  cause,  and  wliicli — although  Mr.  llcrhorfc  Sponcoi- 
i'vadcs  tlic  conclusion — must  bo  a  Person,  a  iM-ini;- 
I'udowed  with  intellect  and  will. 

80  far,  therefore — putting  aside  the  question  of 
lievelation  —  the  teaching  of  science  forces  us  to 
Itelieve  in  a  Being,  an  uncri'atcd  Personal  Life,  from 
wliich,  in  tlie  words  of  Mr.  Spencer,  '*  all  things 
j)njceed."  Well,  when  men  of  science  themselves  go 
so  far  as  that,  it  seems  to  me  that  they  are  somewhat 
illogical  in  not  accepting,  at  all  events,  the  iirst  article 
of  the  creed — "  I  believe  in  one  God." 

But  let  us  consider  in  more  detail  some  of  the 
results  to  which  this  scientific  conclusion  leads.  One 
of  the  first  things  that  nmst  strike  a  reflective  mind, 
in  surveying  this  world  in  which  we  live,  is  the 
]'r«'valence  in  it  of  order.  Now  order  implies  mind 
not  merely  power.  You  may  have  power  without 
order,  without  any  evidence  of  mind.  You  have 
power  in  the  earthquake,  in  the  volcano,  in  the 
tempest  which  can  in  a  few  moments  uproot  a 
forest  or  overwhelm  a  fieet;  you  have  power  but 
not  order,  and  so  far  no  evidence  of  mind.  Ihit 
what  you  have  in  the  world  around  you  is  not  power 
only — although  you  have  that  in  abundance — but 
order,  which  implies  mind.  Suppose  you  were  to  take 
some  dice  and  go  on  throwing  them,  and  ^ou  found 

0 


i8  EVIDENCE   OF  ORDER  IN 

that  not  once,  twice,  thrice,  or  four  times,  but  in- 
variably, the  dice  always  turned  up  on  one  side,  what 
conclusion  would  you  arrive  at  ?  You  would  arrive 
at  the  conclusion — and  could  not  help  it — that  the 
dice  were  loaded.  And  w^hen  you  find  in  this  world 
clear  evidence  of  order,  your  own  reason  must  dnve 
you  back  to  the  conclusion  that  the  world's  dice — 
those  laws  of  which  scientific  men  speak — are  loaded, 
that  they  did  not  construct  themselves,  that  they  arc 
not  haphazard,  that  there  is  some  presiding  mind 
that  has  so  arranged  the  laws  of  Nature — as  they  are 
called — as  to  impress  upon  them  that  uniformity  of 
operation  to  which  some  men  appeal  as  if  it  were 
eternally  and  necessarily  irrefragable.  Look  at  the 
regularity  of  the  seasons,  look  at  the  movements  of 
the  planets  in  their  orbits,  look  at  the  mutually 
counteractive  laws  of  centripetal  force  and  repelling 
or  centrifugal  force.  These  two  forces  are  so  adjusted 
that  they  keep  the  planets  exactly  in  their  courses  "y 
but  they  do  not  account  for  the  original  adjustment 
of  the  stars  and  planets  in  their  present  relative 
position  towards  each  other.  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  the 
discoverer  of  the  law  of  gravitation,  said  that  the 
centripetal  and  centrifugal  force  accounted  for 
the  movement  of  the  planets  in  their  orbits,  l)ut  not 
for  their  magnitude  and  relative  distances  or  for  the 


THE   OPKKATIONS  OF  NATURE.  i^ 

orifrin.il  impulse  wliich  set  tliem  in  motion.  Tiiat 
is  an  insolul»le  mystery  apart  from  Revelation.  You 
cannot  account  for  the  order  and  re<^ularity  every- 
N\  here  apparent  unless  you  believe  that  they  came 
from  and  are  now  presided  over  by  an  intelligent 
mind  supreme  over  Nature.  We  sometimes  speak  as- 
if  it  required  a  miracle  on  the  part  of  Almighty  God 
to  destroy  the  universe,  whereas,  in  truth,  the  miracle 
is  in  the  universe  going  on.  You  may  think  it  won- 
derful that  at  the  word  of  Joshua  the  sun  should 
stand  still,  whatever  be  the  scientific  explanation  of 
a  phenomenon  which  is  not  to  be  understood  literally. 
Ijut  the  wonder,  after  all,  is  not  that  the  sun  should 
stand  still,  but  that  the  sun  should  keep  going  on ; 
not  that  things  should  come  to  a  sudden  stop,  but  that 
they  should  proceed  in  the  regular  order  which  we 
behold.  Suppose  you  found  a  quantity  of  printers' 
type  lying  upc^n  the  ground  in  confusion,  that  would 
not  suggest  any  order  or  presiding  mind.  But  if  you 
found  the  letters  in  regular  order,  forming  words, 
and  the  words  forming  sentences,  and  the  sentences 
conveying  intelligent  ideas,  then  your  reason  would 
force  you  to  the  conclusion  that  such  order  implied 
mind.  Look  abroad  upon  the  win'ld  an<l  you  behold 
this  regular  order  everywhere.  Examine  this  build- 
ing in  which  we  are  assembled  ;  see  its  various  styles 


20  EVOLUTION  EXPLAINS  A   PROCESS, 

of  architecture  pointing  to  chronological  order ;  look 
at  its  windows,  formed  to  admit  light  but  to  exclude 
the  air,  with  their  pictorial  representations,  and  you 
cannot  help  concluding  that  the  Cathedral  is  the 
product  of  an  ordering  mind.  Nature's  arrangement 
of  colours,  combining  utility  with  beauty,  offers 
evidence  equally  cogent.  The  prevailing  colour  is 
green — the  most  useful  and  pleasant  to  the  eye.  And 
when  you  admire  the  blue  tint  of  the  sky  you  should 
remember  that  it  is  in  virtue  of  that  tint  that  plants 
grow  and  bloom  upon  the  earth :  without  it  they 
would  be  starved  to  death,  and  our  planet  would  lose 
that  robe  of  beauty  which  makes  it  so  attractive. 
This  is  anotlier  of  the  evidences  of  mind  which  you 
behold  in  Nature.  We  hear  much  about  the  doctrine 
of  evolution — which  I  shall  discuss  later  on ;  but  after 
all,  what  is  evolution  even  in  the  sense  in  which  its 
most  extreme  teachers  explain  it  ?  The  doctrine  of 
evolution  explains  a  process,  but  does  not  account 
for  the  process.  It  leaves  the  beginning  of  things 
just  where  it  found  it — in  the  impenetrable  darkness 
of  mystery.  Darwin  admitted  that  the  theory  of 
evolution  was  not  in  the  least  degree  a  solution  of  the 
problem  of  existence  ;  that  it  left  the  origin  of  things 
untouched.  In  matter  of  fact,  if  you  accept  the 
doctrine  of  evolution,  what  it  does  is  not  to  drive  God 


BUT  DOES  XOT  ACCOUXT  FOR  I  J.  21 

further  away  from  tlie  woj-ld,  but  to  bi-iiit;-  Him 
nearer — to  place  Him  in  direct  and  providential  con- 
tact with  all  the  movements  and  ])r(jcesse.s  of  Xatuj-c. 
Evolutionists  tell  us  that  life,  in  all  its  infinite 
varieties,  is  derived  from  a  primordial  germ -cell. 
Xow  living  forms,  as  we  know  them,  are  essentially 
variable;  but  from  constant  mechanical  causes  con- 
stant effects  would  ensue.  Without  Clod,  then,  how 
shall  we  explain  the  nudtitudinous  divergences  of  the 
original  life-germ  in  the  course  of  its  development 
towards  all  the  innnmerahle  phases  of  life  which  we 
behold  ?  Without  the  hypothesis  of  a  presidinf*-  mind 
directing  its  processes  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  a 
greater  mystery  than  that  of  special  creations. 


II. 

"I  BELIEVE  IN  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty." 

EVIDENCE   OF  UNITY  IN  NATURE 

And  now  let  us  proceed  with  the  first  article  of  the 
creed.  You  remember  that  when  I  last  addressed  you 
I  endeavoured  to  show  that  human  reason  itself  drives 
us  back  to  belief  in  a  First  Cause,  a  cause  which  itself 
had  no  cause,  a  cause  which  is  eternal,  living,  personal, 
and  which  consists  of  more  than  one  Person.  The 
Creed  goes  on  further  to  tell  us  that  this  First  Cause, 
this  Uncreated  Being,  though  Three  in  personality,  is 
One  in  essence : — "  I  believe  in  one  God."  Here,  too, 
our  reason  drives  us  to  that  conclusion,  just  as  it  forces 
us  to  believe  in  a  First  Cause,  which  is  an  eternal, 
living,  Personal  Energy,  from  which  all  things  proceed. 
To  believe  in  several  First  Causes  would  be  a  contra- 
diction in  terms  and  an  absurdity.  So  that  if  we 
believe  in  God  at  all,  it  is  obvious  that  we  must 
accept  the  further  declaration  of  the  Creed  that  there 
is  but  "one  God."    And  Nature  ratifies  the  dictates  of 


IMPLIES  OXE   CREATOR.  23 

our  own  reason;  she  l>ears  innuiucniblc  traces  »>t' 
liavinf]^  come  from  one  designing  and  ordering  Mint  I. 
In  tlie  relations  of  lier  parts  to  oacli  other  slie  is 
governed  hy  a  uniform  system  of  laws.  The  law  of 
gravitation  prevails  tlirougliout  the  whole  planetary 
and  sidereal  system,  and  so  perfect  is  the  mutual 
adjustment,  so  regular  the  movements  of  these  vast 
hodies,  that  their  relative  positions  may  be  calculated 
years  in  advance.  ^loreover,  the  spectroscope  has 
i-evealed  the  fact  that  the  constituent  elements  of  the 
planets  and  distant  stars  are  the  same  as  those  of  our 
earth.  That  surely  is  another  clear  indication  that  the 
universe  is  the  product  of  one  creative  Mind. 

So,  again,  if  you  survey  life  in  the  multitudinous 
forms  in  which  it  appears  on  our  planet,  you  see  plain 
evidences  of  the  same  great  truth.  To  take  one 
example.  Under  the  immensely  varied  forms  of 
insect  life  you  find  a  wonderful  community  of  struc- 
ture, irrespective  of  the  size  of  the  insect.  The 
elongated  body  of  the  dragon-fly,  the  contracted 
form  of  the  lady -bird,  the  different  kinds  of  butter- 
llics  and  moths,  and  tiny  insects  like  the  ilea,  havr  all 
one  characteristic  in  connnon ;  their  bodies  consist 
of  twenty  primary  segments.  The  same  structural 
peculiarit}^  prevails  throughout  the  whole  tribe  (^f  the 
Crustacea — the  crab,  the  lobster,  the  squilla,  and  all 


24  FACTS  WHICH  DARWINISM 

the  rest.  How  shall  we  account  for  this  fundamental 
identity  of  type  among  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
different  species  of  insect  life,  if  we  reject  the  belief 
that  they  all  came  originally  from  one  intelligent 
creative  Will  operative  in  and  presiding  over  the 
realm  of  Nature  ?  The  doctrine  of  chances  entirely 
excludes  the  possibility  of  such  a  result  otherwise 
than  as  the  outcome  of  a  designing  will.  Darwin's 
explanation  merely  states  facts;  it  does  not  account 
for  them.  The  fact  that  insects,  birds,  quadrupeds, 
are  aided  in  "  the  struggle  for  existence  "  by  adapting 
themselves  to  their  surroundings  does  not  explain 
their  power  of  so  adapting  themselves.  Why  does 
the  ptarmigan,  without  any  effort  on  its  own  part, 
become  white  as  snow  in  v\'inter  and  mottled,  like 
the  ground  which  it  haunts,  in  autumn  ?  To  say 
that  these  changes  of  plumage  help  it  in  the  struggle 
for  existence  is  a  truism,  not  an  explanation.  The 
neuters,  which  constitute  the  majority  of  every  bee  com- 
munity, are  sexually  inchoate  and  barren.  But  if  the 
queen  should  be  destroyed  or  removed,  the  bees  choose 
one  of  the  neuter  eggs  that  have  been  deposited  in 
their  appropriate  cells,  and  form  a  "  royal  cell "  by  the 
demolition  of  several  ordinary  cells.  The  selected 
grub  is  then  fed  with  "royal  jelly,"  a  pungent,  stimu- 
latinof  aliment  of  a  different  nature  from  the  '"'  bee- 


DOES  NOT  EX  PL  A I  y.  2$ 

l)iviul "  which  is  stored  U])  i'or  the  ccjiiiiiiunity.  The 
grub  thus  treated  comes  forth  a  perfect  queen,  differ- 
ino-  from  tlie  neuter  into  which  it  would  otherwise 
have  developed,  not  only  in  its  sexual  completeness, 
hut  also  in  the  form  of  the  body,  in  the  length  of  the 
wings,  in  the  shape  of  the  tongue,  jaws,  and  sting,  in 
the  absence  of  the  hollow  on  the  thighs  in  which 
pollen  is  carried,  in  its  inability  to  secrete  wax,  and  in 
its  general  instincts.  Here  we  have  an  obvious  proof 
of  design  which  cannot  be  explained  away  by  plausible 
phrases  like  "natural  selection,"  "survival  of  the 
fittest,"  and  "  struggle  for  existence."  The  instinct  of 
the  bees  denotes  a  Power  behind  the  instinct  working 
intelligently  towards  a  definite  and  foreseen  end. 
"  For  the  '  fittest '  to  have  survived,  they  must  have 
come  to  possess  the  structure  that  made  them  the 
fittest,"^  and  neither  Darwin  nor  his  disciples  have 
explained  that  secret.  Surely  the  rational  con- 
clusion is  that  the  Almighty  Maker,  with  that 
comprehensive  skill  of  which  we  observe  analogies 
in  master  minds  among  ourselves,  has  selected  the 
fittest  plan  for  a  certain  class  of  bodily  forms,  and 
then  adapted  it  with  infinite  variations  according 
to  the  requirements  of  each  case ;  just  as  in  the 
composition  of  some  great  master  of  music  your 
'  Dr.  Carpenter's  Nature  and  Man^  p.  130. 


26  MAN'S  HAPPINESS 

ear  may  catch  a  simple  melody  running  through  all 
the  variations  and  intricacies  of  the  piece;  or  as  a 
great  architect  or  a  great  painter,  through  all  his 
creations,  has  one  style  which  marks  him  off  from 
all  others.  And  the  loftier  the  genius  is,  the  more 
characteristic  and  separate  is  the  style  of  its  produc- 
tions. If,  therefore,  this  world  is  the  product  of  one 
.supreme  Architect  and  Painter,  we  should  naturally 
expect  His  work  to  bear  this  characteristic  of  style ; 
the  adaptation  of  a  comparatively  few  primary  ideas 
to  an  infinite  variet}^  of  results.  And  this  is  precisely 
what  we  find  throughout  the  works  of  Nature. 

But  man  demands  not  only  satisfaction  for  the 
intellect  in  the  postulate  of  a  First  Cause,  from  which 
all  things  proceed ;  he  demands  satisfaction  for  his 
affections  and  conscience  as  well.  For  man  is  not  an 
intellectual  being  only ;  he  is  a  being  endowed  with 
affections  and  a  sense  of  rigrht  and  wron^j-  He  bestows 
love,  and  he  demands  it  in  return.  It  is  one  of  our 
temptations  to  imagine  that  the  great  secret  of  human 
happiness  lies  in  being  independent,  in  being  under 
no  control,  in  being  allowed  to  follow  our  bent  and 
to  have  our  own  way  in  all  things.  This  is  a  grievous 
fallacy.  There  is  one  Being  in  the  whole  universe, 
and  one  only,  who  can  afford  to  be  independent,  and 
that  is  Almighty  God,  the  ever-blessed  Three  in  One. 


NOT  SECURED  BY   IXDEFENDENCE.  27 

Mo  is  perfectly  iii<lepeii(leiit.  He  needs  notliin;^  from 
Mitliout.  He  is  the  source,  the  centre,  and  the  cause 
of  His  own  liappiness.  And  wlicn  He  hroke  tlie 
silence  of  eternity  with  tlie  sights  and  sounds  of 
created  life,  it  w^as  not  because  He  needed  any  acces- 
sion of  hliss  from  outside,  but  because  His  nature, 
like  His  name,  is  love,  and  it  is  of  the  essence  of  love 
to  give  itself  away,  to  l)estow  itself  on  objects  capable 
of  appreciating  it;  feeling  that  it  is  more  blessed 
to  give  than  to  receive. 

But  every  created  life,  from  the  highest  archangel 
to  the  lowliest  worm  that  crawls  along  the  ground, 
must  seek  its  happiness  in  some  source  external 
to  itself.  Analyze  your  own  hearts  and  you  will 
find  that  it  is  so,  and  the  history  of  mankind  will 
teach  you  the  same  lesson.  He  Who  formed  him  in 
the  beginning  declared  that  it  was  not  good  for 
man  to  be  alone.  Solitude  is  intolerable  to  a  human 
l)eing,  and  the  most  awful  punishment  you  can  inflict 
on  a  criminal  is  solitary  confinement.  Place  a  man  in 
some  vast  solitude,  and  let  that  solitude  be  irradiated 
by  the  fairest  combination  of  natural  scenery  that 
human  imagination  can  conceive;  let  Nature  be 
made  to  minister  mechanically  to  his  wants ;  let 
every  wish  be  gratified  as  soon  as  felt.  Wt)uld 
that   man    be    happy    in    his    solitude  ?      Far   from 


28  MAN  IS  A   SOCIAL  BEING 

it.  He  would  pine  for  converse  with  a  life  inde- 
pendent of  him,  with  some  being  who  could  under- 
stand him,  exchange  ideas  with  him,  receive  and  give 
back  love.  And  rather  than  feel  utterly  alone  he 
would  try  to  conceal  his  solitariness  even  from  him- 
self by  investing  inanimate  objects  with  a  fictitious  life. 
He  would  welcome  the  mere  semblance  of  life,  any- 
thing that  had  movement  in  it,  as  a  relief  from  the 
oppression  of  overwhelming  stillness.  Wandering 
clouds,  waving  forests,  murmuring  streams,  the  sound 
of  waves  breaking  on  the  shore — anything  to  break 
the  solitude,  to  withdraw  the  mind  from  feedino:  on 
itself,  would  be  a  relief  to  him.  Man  yearns  for 
companionship,  for  the  communion  of  his  kind,  for 
the  society  of  lives  which  are  spontaneous  and  there- 
fore independent  of  him.  A  plant  is  thus  better  than 
the  movements  of  inorganic  nature,  because  it  en- 
shrines that  unsolved  riddle  of  science — the  mystery 
of  life — and  piques  man's  curiosity  accordingly,  luring 
him  onwards  yet  baffling  his  research.  Flowers  have 
a  life  independent  of  man,  and  they  respond  to  his 
treatment  of  them.  They  flourish  under  his  foster- 
ing care ;  they  droop  through  his  neglect.  The  forms 
and  pi'ocesses  of  vegetable  life  therefore  interest  man 
more  tlian  the  movements  of  inanimate  forces,  because 
they  have  the  charm  of  m}'stery.     Your  interest  in 


NEEDIXG   CONGEXIAL   FELLOWSHIP.  29 

jinytliiiiL^^  iiicroascs  in  tlic  doii^rce  in  ^vlliL•ll  it  eludes 
your  cfiorts  to  niira\t'l  its  secret.  For  the  same 
reason  an  animal  is  more  interesting  than  a  flower. 
It  has  more  of  a  spontaneous  movement,  and  comes 
nearer  to  tlie  life  of  man.  It  has  the  shadow  of  a 
free  will,  though  not  the  substance,  and  enters  more 
than  the  flower  into  the  higher  life  of  man. 

But  man  is  still  unhappy.  No  kind  of  life  beneath 
himself  will  satisfy  his  longing  for  companionship. 
He  cannot  rest  in  an3'thing  short  of  a  life  congenial 
to  his  (^wn,  his  e(|ual  at  least,  his  superior  still  better. 
We  are  not  made  for  independence.  It  was  the 
endeavour  to  be  independent  that  ruined  our  race. 
Kansack  the  annals  of  sovereignty  all  the  w^orld  over 
and  you  will  And  that  the  deepest  longing  of  the 
1  111  man  heart,  even  in  its  wildest  aberrations,  is  not 
so  much  to  possess  as  to  be  possessed ;  to  be  taken 
hold  of,  lifted  up,  guided,  comforted,  l)y  some  one  it 
can  love  and  trust.  Make  a  man  a  despot,  absolute 
monarch  of  all  he  surveys,  with  no  one  to  dispute 
his  will  in  anything;  will  that  make  him  happy? 
No ;  he  will  long  for  some  will  to  oppose  his  own, 
some  one  to  whom  he  can  bow  down.  And  thus  you 
will  invariably  find  behind  the  throne  some  subject 
of  the  monarch — a  minister,  a  favourite,  a  wife,  a 
child,  a   mistress,  it   may  even   be   a   court  fool — to 


30  GOD  ALONE  SATISFIES: 

whom  the  master  of  millions  is  himself  a  slave.  So 
impossible  is  it  for  man  to  live  in  solitude  or  be 
independent. 

But  in  the  wide  realm  of  created  beings  there  is 
no  life  on  which  man  can  repose  in  secure  and 
absolute  confidence.  Created  life  through  all  its 
ranks  is  more  or  less  unstable.  Human  life  is  so 
especially. 

The  gray-liaired  saint  may  fail  at  last; 
The  safest  guide  a  wanderer  prove. 

The  closest  friend  may  prove  false,  the  warmest  love 
may  turn  to  indifference,  or  even  hate.  And  in  any 
case  a  day  of  separation  must  come ;  we  or  they  must 
pass  the  boundary  of  mortal  life ;  one  will  be  taken 
and  the  other  left.  Nor  would  even  angelic  life 
satisfy  man's  craving  for  companionship.  There  is 
no  guarantee  for  the  immortality  of  any  created  life 
apart  from  its  uncreated  source,  and  short  of  that 
source  therefore  man  cannot  rest.  Besides,  man  is  a 
creature  of  progress  :  that  is  the  law  of  all  intellectual 
and  moral  life.  "  They  shall  go  from  strength  to 
strength "  is  the  promise ;  "  Be  ye  perfect  as  your 
Father  Which  is  in  Heaven  is  perfect "  is  the  Divine 
command.  To  ensure  this  never-ending  progress 
man  must  have  a  perfect  ideal,  an  ever-receding  goal, 
towards  which  he  is  always  moving,  but  which  he 


THEREFORE    THE   FATHER   ALMIGniY.  31 

can  lu'vor  reach.  Tin'  man  wlio  suceci'ds  in  rcjilizinL^ 
liis  own  idtal  in  any  department  of  intellectual  or 
moi-al  cfiort  will  excel  no  more.  God  alone,  therefore, 
can  satisfy  tlie  desires  of  the  human  heart.  ''  O  Ood," 
says  St.  Ano-nstine,  "  Thou  hast  made  the  heart  of 
man  for  Thyself,  and  it  is  restless  till  it  rests  in 
Thee."  Therefore  the  creed  goes  on  to  say  not  only 
that  we  must  helieve  in  one  God,  but,  in  addition, 
that  we  nnist  regard  this  one  God  as  our  Father,  and 
as  a  Father  Who,  unlike  human  fathers,  is  almighty 
—able,  that  is,  to  make  His  will  ettective  and  bring 
His  purpose  t(  >  pass. 

Here  again  the  creed  meets  one  of  the  irrepressible 
•lemands  of  human  nature— the  demand  of  a  certain 
relationship  towards  its  Creator,  the  relation  of  a 
child  to  its  father.  We  believe  therefore  not  only 
that  God  is  the  First  Cause,  that  He  is  an  eternal, 
living,  Personal  Energy,  pervading  all  creation,  yet 
above  the  creation  and  independent  of  it,  and  that 
He  is  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  one  undivided  essence  ; 
but  further  that  this  one  God  and  Creator  stands  in 
the  relation  of  Father  to  the  creatures  of  His  omnipo- 
tent will. 

And  yet,  viewing  the  Nvorld  at  large,  is  that  the 
relation  in  which  it  seems  to  stand  towards  its  Maker  ? 
Arc  the  attributes  of  a  Divine  Fatherhood  those  that 


32  SUFFERING  IN  NATURE 

chiefly  arrest  our  attention  in  our  examination  of 
nature  ?  Does  not  Nature  wear  a  cruel,  heartless, 
relentless,  almost  mocking  face,  when  man  tries  to 
read  her  purposes  in  her  acts  ?  Was  there  not  some 
justification  for  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill  when  he 
retorted  on  those  who  lauded  the  benignity  and  bene- 
ficence of  Nature,  that  if  any  man  were  to  act  as 
Nature  was  acting  every  day,  he  would  in  any 
civilized  community  be  hanged  ?  Look  abroad  upon 
the  world.  Where  do  you  see  the  features  of  an 
Almiglity  Father  ?  Is  not  the  world  like  the 
Prophet's  scroll — "full,  within  and  without,  of 
lamentation,  and  mourning,  and  woe  ? "  Do  we  not 
feel  with  the  Apostle  that  "  the  whole  creation 
groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now  "  ? 
That  is  the  first  impression  which  the  study  of 
Nature  is  calculated  to  make  on  a  reflective  mind. 
The  world  is  full  of  misery  and  pain,  and  this 
apparently  anterior  to  the  entrance  of  sin  and  inde- 
pendent of  it.  Geology  has  deciphered  for  us  the 
testimony  of  the  rocks  and  of  the  everlasting  hills, 
and  there  we  find  ample  evidence  of  conflict  and 
carnage  long  before  the  apparition  of  man  upon  the 
scene.  Timorous  flight  and  fierce  pursuit;  animals 
fleet  of  foot  and  strong  of  limb,  with  claws  to  rend 
and  teeth  to  grind ;  whole  tribes  living  on  the  violent 
death  of   creatures  weaker  than  themselves — this  is 


APART  FROM  SIX.  33 

wlmt  we  find  written  on  the  unerring-  records  o£  tlic 
time  when  man  was  not  as  yet.  How  aro  wc  to 
reconcile  it  witli  our  belief  in  an  Almighty  Creator 
Wlio  is  the  Father  of  a  world  which  is  one  vast  arena 
of  carna<]fe  ? 

One  view  is  that  there  is  a  great  interval  between 
the  first  verse  of  Genesis  and  tiie  second:  the  first 
describing  this  earth  as  it  came  from  the  liands  of 
( Jod  ;  the  second  describing  it  as  ruined  by  Satan. 
Accordinc^  to  that  view,  the  chief  of  the  fallen  annrels 
and  his  host  ruled  this  planet  and  involved  it  in  their 
own  ruin.  Tliis  would  of  course  make  sufierinor  the 
consequence  of  sin  from  the  very  beginning.  But  it 
can  only  be  a  matter  of  more  or  less  probable  specu- 
lation, and  we  need  not  dwell  upon  it.  It  is  better  to 
seek  for  an  explanation  in  regions  which  we  can 
tread  with  firmer  foot.  Wc  are  now  considerinc: 
suflfering  as  apart  from  sin — the  existence  of  pain  in 
the  animal  world.  In  this  connection  it  is  important 
to  bear  in  mind  the  view  which  St.  Paul  ffives  us  of 
the  world  in  relation  to  tlie  Mediator.  In  a  passage 
already  quoted  he  represents  the  whole  creation  as 
sharing  not  only  in  man's  misery,  but  likewise  in  his 
redemption.  And  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  he  tells  us  that  Christ's  Atonement 
embraced  the  universe ;  not  only  the  human  race,  but 

D 


34       THE  MEEK  INHERIT  THE  EARTH. 

the  whole  intelligent  and  sentient  creation,  visible  and 
invisible.     I  understand  this  to  mean  that  the  Incar- 
nation of  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  is  the  copula  that 
bridofes  over  the  chasm  which  had  divided  the  Creator 
from  the  creature,  thus  making  them  in  a  manner  at 
one  with  each  other,  the  creation  through  all  its  series 
becoming  a  partaker  of  the  Divine  Nature  by  means 
of  the  Incarnation.     Now,  if  this  be  so,  may  not  the 
moral  discipline  of  man,  his  perfection  through  suffer- 
inof,  find   its  analo^rue  in   the  animal   creation  ?     At 
first,  brute  force  seems  to  have  it  all  its  own  way.     It 
is  not  a  survival  of   the  fittest  that  we  behold,  but 
rather  of  the  strongest,  the  most  ruthless,  the  most 
cruel.     But  wait  a  little,  and  you  shall  see  that  even 
in   the  animal   kingdom  "the  meek,"  in  spite  of  all 
appearances,  *' shall  inherit  the  earth."     It  is  in  the 
nature  of  violence  to  defeat  itself,  partly  by  the  recoil 
of  its  own  force  and  partly  by  raising  up  against  it 
forces  that  shall  eventually  destroy  it.    It  is  so  among 
men.     Power  created   and   sustained   by  violence   is 
doomed.      The   old   dominions   that   relied   on  force 
alone    were    short-lived,    chasing    each     other     like 
breakers  on  a  beach.     It   is   so  also  in   the  animal 
world.     The  animals  that  rely  on  violence  alone  for 
their  existence  are  disappearing,  and  the  meek  and 
useful  are  taking  their  place.     Nor  is  this  all.     The 


THE  SUFFERING   OF  ANIMALS.  35 

very  qualities  which  seemed  to  make  the  meek  easy 
victims  are  precisely  the  qualities  which  have  con- 
duced to  their  survival — social  qualities  which  have 
been  developed  by  the  discipline  of  suffering,  and  have 
made  them  more  than  a  match  for  their  oppressors. 
Thus  we  see  that  even  in  the  animal  world  the 
battle  is  not  in  the  long-run  to  the  swift  and  strong, 
l)ut  to  the  gentle  and  long-suftering.  The  meek  shall 
inherit  the  earth  ;  the  Cross  shall  overcome  the  sword. 
The  law  of  vicarious  sacrilice  has  thus  its  place  in 
the  lower  creation,  which  exhibits  its  martyrs  dying 
for  the  amelioration  of  the  race.  The  suffering  of 
the  animal  world  may  therefore  be  less  purposeless 
and  arbitrary  and  cruel  than  it  seems  at  first  sight. 

But  there  is  another  consideration  which  may 
enable  us  to  reconcile  still  more  clearly  the  existence 
of  suffering  with  belief  in  an  Almighty  Father.  Is  it 
certain  that  the  suffering  of  animals  is  anything  like 
as  great  as  it  seems  ?  The  real  seat  of  pain  is  in  the 
soul.  In  the  excitement  of  battle  soldiers  often  feel 
neither  the  weight  of  armour  nor  the  pain  of  wounds  : 
the  intellectual  and  emotional  part  of  man  being 
otherwise  intensely  occupied,  it  does  not  feel  the 
twitching  of  bodily  nerves.  It  is  so  also  in  the  case 
of  any  sudden  mental  shock  :  for  a  time  the  pain  of 
bodily  ills  has  ceased  to  be  felt.     What  makes  pain  so 


36  DR.  LIVINGSTONE'S  OPINION. 

trying  to  us  is  our  power  of  generalizing  ;  our  faculty 
of  memory,  of  reflection,  of  anticipation.  We  store 
up  in  our  memory  the  pains  that  we  have  endured, 
and  feel  vividly  beforehand  the  pains  that  we  expect. 
Animals  have  very  little  of  this.  With  them  each 
shock  of  pain,  for  the  most  part,  begins  and  ends  in 
itself.  There  is  no  prolonged  agony.  No  doubt  some 
of  the  animals  which  have  come  under  the  rule  and 
discipline  of  man  do  in  a  slight  degree  remember  and 
anticipate  pain.  But  w^e  are  now  speaking  of  animals 
in  the  wild  state,  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
their  suffering  is  really  very  great.  A  short  chase 
and  swift  stroke,  and  there  is  an  end  of  life.  In 
this  connection  we  may  recall  a  very  interesting 
suggestion  thrown  out  by  Dr.  Livingstone  in  his 
account  of  his  travels  in  Central  Africa.  He  was 
attacked  by  a  lion,  which  seized  him  by  the  arm 
shook  liim  violently  (breaking  his  arm),  dropped  him 
and  watched  him  for  awhile,  and  then  left  him. 
Livinofstone  retained  his  entire  consciousness  unim- 
paired  under  the  paw  of  the  lion,  but  the  shock 
deprived  him  of  all  pain  and  fear,  and  he  says  that  he 
watched  the  lion  with  calm  curiosity,  wondering  when 
the  brute  would  begin  to  eat  him.  Eeflecting  on  this 
incident  afterwards,  the  great  traveller  came  to  the 
conclusion  that,  by  a  merciful  provision  of  Providence, 


ALSO  DARIVLVS  AXD    WALLACE'S.  37 

the  attacks  of  beasts  of  prey  paralyze  the  nerves  <>i' 
sensation  in  their  victims  and  destroy  all  fear.  Foi- 
these  reasons  then  we  may  trust  that  there  is  com- 
paratively little  suftering  in  the  animal  world,  as  we 
know    and    understand   suffering.^     The    higher,   the 

*  "  I  am  bewildered.  I  liad  no  iutcntiou  to  write  atheistically. 
But  I  own  that  I  cannot  sec  as  plainly  as  others  do,  and  as  I  should 
wish  to  do,  evidence  of  desij^u  and  beneficence  on  all  sides  of  us. 
There  seems  to  me  too  much  misery  in  the  world.  I  cannot 
persuade  myself  that  a  beneficent  and  omnipotent  God  would  have 
designedly  created  the  Ichncnmonida)  with  the  express  intention  of 
their  feeding  within  the  living  bodies  of  caterpillars,  or  that  a  cat 
should  play  with  mice." — Letter  from  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray  in  Life  and 
Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,  vol.  ii.  pp.  311,  312.  But  what  evidence  is 
there  that  the  caterpillar  feels  any  pain  while  being  devoured  ?  For 
all  we  know,  the  sensation  may  be  pleasurable,  if  (which  is  unlikely) 
so  low  an  organization  is  susceptible  of  cither  pleasure  or  pain.  And 
does  it  not  stand  to  reason  that  if  Dr.  Livingstone  lost  all  pain  and 
fear  after  the  lion  had  shaken  him,  a  cat  playing  with  mice  may 
mean  no  misery  at  all  ?  The  fact  is,  we  know  far  too  little  of  the 
animal  world  to  be  justified  in  dogmatizing  on  this  subject.  Darwin 
himself,  in  this  very  letter,  goes  on  to  add  :  *'  A  dog  might  as  well 
speculate  on  the  mind  of  Newton."  After  these  addresses  were  in 
typo  I  received,  through  the  kindness  of  Messrs.  !Macmillan,  a  copy 
of  ^Ir.  Wallace's  book  on  Darwinism,  just  published,  and  I  am 
delighted  to  find  tliat  my  view  ou  this  subject  is  covered  by  his 
great  authority.  Curiously  enough,  he  too  quotes  the  story  of  Dr. 
Livingstone  and  the  lion ;  and  he  also  quotes  the  following  passage 
from  the  Origin  of  Species,  which  shows  that  Darwin  had  not  made 
up  his  mind  on  the  subject  of  pain  among  animals  :  "  When  we 
reflect  on  this  struggle,  we  may  console  ourselves  with  the  full  belief 
that  the  war  of  Nature  is  not  incessant,  that  no  fear  is  felt,  that  death 
is  generally  prompt,  and  that  the  vigorous,  the  healthy,  and  the  hapjiv 
survive  and  multiply."  Darwinism,  pp.  3G-10,  by  Alfred  Kusscll 
Wallace,  LL.D. 


38  DUTY  OF  KINDNESS  TO  ANIMALS. 

more  refined  the  nature,  the  more  sensitive  it  is  to 
pain.  In  this  way  alone  our  Lord  suffered  as  no  other 
man  ever  suffered  or  can  suffer.  A  refined,  well- 
disciplined  man  suffers  pain  much  more  keenly  than 
a  rude,  uneducated  man  of  rougher  fibre,  although 
the  latter  will  probably  sliow  the  pain  a  great  deal 
more.  And  inasmuch  as  animals  are  far  lower  in  the 
scale  of  feeling  than  man,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  their  sensitiveness  to  pain  is  far  less,  however 
startling  the  outward  manifestation  of  it  may  be.  This, 
of  course,  is  no  excuse  for  inflicting  unnecessary  pain 
vTpon  them.  The  Incarnation  has  invested  the  whole 
of  the  material  creation  with  some  degree  of  sanctity, 
and  has  laid  on  Christians  especially  the  obligation  of 
being  considerate  and  tender  to  the  lower  animals, 
many  of  which  are  so  useful  to  man,  and  so  faithful 
and  uncomplaining. 


III. 

"Maker   of  Heaven  and  Earth,  and  of  all 
Things  vlsible  and  invisible." 

god  as  creator. 

So  far  I  have  been  consideriiii^  the  creed  as  the 
answer  of  Christianity  to  the  instinctive  demands  of 
human  nature — man's  intellect,  affections,  and  con- 
science. The  intellect  forces  us  back  to  belief  in  a 
First  Cause,  which  is  an  eternal,  living,  personal  In- 
telligence, from  which  all  things  proceed.  Our  affec- 
tions demand  further  that  we  should  be  able  to  stand 
towards  this  Supreme  Being  in  an  attitude  of  perfect 
trust — the  attitude  of  a  child  towards  its  parent. 
And  the  creed  responds  to  this  universal  craving  of 
liumanity  by  telling  us  that  the  one  God  is  an 
Almighty  Father,  Whose  care  and  loving-kindness, 
therefore,  are  over  all  His  works,  and  "Whuni  we  can 
love  and  trust  with  absolute  confidence,  in  spite  of  all 
appearances  to  the  contrary.  Clouds  and  darkness 
may  be  round  about  Him  obscuring,  and  it  may  even 
be   distorting,  His   features ;    yet    righteousness  and 


40  PANTHEISM  NO  SOLUTION 

judgment  are  ever  the  habitation  of  His  seat.  An 
Almighty  Father,  we  feel  instinctively,  can  never  do 
or  sanction  wrong  to  His  children. 

AVe   now   approach   another  aspect   of    this   great 
Beincr.     He  is  the  "  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and 

o 

of  all  things  visible  and  invisible."  We  have  already 
considered  Him,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer,  as  "  an  eternal  living  Energy,  from  which  all 
things  proceed."  But  how  do  they  proceed  from 
Him  ?  Is  it  by  way  of  organic  development,  like  an 
oak  from  an  acorn,  the  material  universe  being  but 
the  visible  robe  of  an  all-pervading,  impersonal,  unin- 
telligent life  ?  That  is  the  answer  of  Pantheism,  which 
thus  confounds  and  identifies  the  Creator  with  the 
creation,  or  rather  excludes  altogether  the  idea  of 
creation.  A  diffused  mindless  Presence  permeating 
the  universe  evidently  offers  no  satisfaction  to  the 
deep-rooted  desires  of  humanity ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
flatly  contradicts  them  all.  We  observe  order  and 
design  in  the  universe  ;  but  order  and  design  imply 
mind  so  evidently  that  our  reason  refuses  to  associate 
them  with  any  cause  short  of  mind.  To  suppose  the 
contrary  would  be  like  supposing  that  this  cathedral 
could  have  been  designed  by  a  jelly-fish,  or  that 
Handel's  "  Messiah  "  could  have  been  composed  by  an 
accidental  combination  of  sounds.     Water  cannot  rise 


OF  THE  PROBLEMS  OF  EXISTENCE.  41 

higlier  than  its  source.  It  is  an  axiom  in  pliilosopliy 
that  the  effect  cannot  contain  more  tluui  tlicre  is  in 
its  cause.  Our  reason,  if  we  <;ive  it  fair  play,  rebels 
against  the  supposition  of  a  Shakespeare  or  a  Newton 
l^eing  the  product  of  a  formless,  unintelligent  ocean  of 
l)eing  into  which  they  have  been  reabsorbed  like 
rain-drops  into  the  sea.  On  such  an  hypothesis  the 
Avorld  would  be  the  offspring  of  mere  chance,  "  a 
mighty  maze  w^ithout  a  plan,"  as  the  poet  has  it.  But 
tliat  is  a  conclusion  Avhich  the  doctrine  of  chances 
precludes.  Chance  may  produce  some  extraordinary 
results  ;  but  these  results  lie  within  very  narrow  and 
calculable  limits,  and  throw  no  light  at  all  on  the 
phenomena  of  the  universe.  Pantheism,  therefore, 
fails  to  offer  any  solution  of  the  origin  of  things,  or 
on  their  permanence  and  order.  And  it  fails  still 
more  conspicuously  to  satisfy  the  heart  and  con- 
science. When  man's  heart  is  crushed  with  sorrow, 
or  his  conscience  outraged  by  a  sense  of  wrong,  it  is 
sheer  mockery  to  send  him  to  an  impersonal  force  for 
consolation.  What  he  needs  and  cries  for  is  a  person, 
a  being  who  can  understand  liim,  enter  into  his 
thoughts,  sympathize  witli  hlin  and  help  him.  And 
to  that  need  Pantheism  can  make  no  answer  ;  man 
might  a.s  well  appeal  to  the  voiceless  waves  or  the 
nnhearing  winds. 


42  ANSWER   OF  KICENE   CREED: 

Here,  then,  the  Nieene  Creed  supplies  a  universal 
want.  It  tells  us  that  the  universe  is  not  an  eternal 
evolution,  but  a  free  creation ;  not  an  unconscious 
development  from  an  unconscious  force  existing- 
eternally,  but  a  coming  into  being  in  obedience 
to  the  fiat  of  a  supreme  personal  Will.  The  one  God 
and  Father  Almighty  is  therefore  further  described 
as  the  "  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things 
visible  and  invisible."  And  this  additional  defini- 
tion is  no  mere  surplusage.  It  was  needed  to  mark 
the  absolute  separation  of  the  Creator  from  His 
work,  and  His  perfect  independence  of  it.  In  our 
experience  of  Nature  the  relation  of  parent  to  off*- 
spring  is  not  that  of  creation  but  of  development — 
the  evolution  of  life  from  preceding  life  of  the  same 
kind  by  way  of  natural  process.  In  no  case  do 
parents  originate  life :  they  pass  on  what  they  have 
received  through  a  process  whose  interior  secret  no 
human  skill  can  penetrate.  It  was  not  thus  that  the 
universe  came  from  its  Creator.  It  derives  its  origin 
from  Him  and  is  the  product  of  His  self-conscious 
enero-izinof  will.  We  are  not  now  concerned  with  the 
mode  of  its  production — with  the  infinite  ramifications 
of  its  order  and  development ;  that  is  a  fit  subject  for 
man's  research  and  speculation,  and  it  in  no  way 
touches   the  question   of   creation.     What  the  creed 


CKEATIOX,   NOT  ETERXAI.   KVOLUTIOX.  43 

teaches  is  tliat  the  universe  is  not  a  part  of  Ahniglity 
God ;  no  evolution  out  of  Him  like  a  forest  from  an 
jicorn,  like  heat  from  the  sun,  like  rain-drops  from 
tlie  ocean — transient  forms  of  beinir  eternall}'  ciiierg- 
\\vs,  out  of  a  mindless  and  heartless  soul  of  the 
universe,  and  then  falling  hack  into  the  fonnless  mass 
of  universal  life  and  losing-  their  individuality.  To 
an  intellectual  being  this  of  course  would  mean  anni- 
hilation. A  universally  diffused  impersonal  formless 
life  is  an  hypothesis  for  wliich  there  is  not  a  shred  of 
evidence.  We  know  nothing  of  life  apart  from  its 
individual  manifestations. 

What  we  learn  from  the  creed,  then,  is  that  the 
universe  came  from  the  volition  of  an  unmipotent 
creative  personal  Will ;  the  universe,  and  not  merely 
its  cosmical  arrangements;  "heaven  and  earth,  and 
all  things  visible  and  invisible ; "  all  unseen  forces 
and  occult  essences  as  well  as  whatever  is  apparent 
to  the  bodily  senses  or  discoverable  by  the  reason. 
To  the  Almighty  Father  the  universe  thus  owes 
its  being,  its  preservation,  its  movements,  its  beauty. 
Apart  from  Him  it  is  nothing.  AVere  He  to  with- 
draw Himself  from  it  for  an  instant,  as  its  im- 
manent Life  and  personal  Ruk'r,  the  universe  wouM 
innnediately  collapse  and  there  would  be  a  uni- 
versal silence  of  the  spheres.     Now  of  course  tlie  idea 


44  CREATION  OUT  OF  NOTHING. 

of  creation  out  of  nothing  is  one  which  our  minds 
cannot  fully  embrace,  although  reason  seems  to  force 
us  to  that  conclusion.  But  what  does  creation  out  of 
nothing  imply  ?  Does  it  mean  that  God  Almighty, 
in  the  perfection  of  His  triple  Personality,  lived  alone 
through  an  untold  eternity  ;  no  universe  to  fill  infinite 
space;  no  sound  to  break  infinite  silence;  no  angels 
to  render  loyal  service ;  no  men  or  animals  to  live  in 
the  light  of  the  sun  and  fulfil  their  brief  span  of 
mortal  life  ? 

That  is  one  view ;  but  is  it  the  view  which  best 
accords  with  reason  and  with  the  teaching  of  Holy 
Scripture?  If  God  is  an  Eternal  Personal  Energy, 
must  we  not  think  of  Him  as  always  working  ?  Can 
we  regard  Him  as  existing  through  timeless  ages  in 
a  state  of  self-contemplating  repose,^  and  then  passing 
into  a  condition  of  creative  activity  ?  Is  it  not  both 
more  reasonable  and  more  Scriptural  to  think  of  Him 
as    eternally    creating — Eternal    Love    everlastingly 

^  This  seems  to  have  been  Aristotle's  notion ;  for,  after  defining 
vovs  as  "  the  most  godlike  of  objective  existences  [ruv  (paiyofiiuwi 
BeioTaTuv),"  he  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  more  the  mind  is  abstracted 
from  phenomena  and  becomes  independent  of  them,  the  nearer  it 
approaches  to  perfection,  which,  according  to  him,  consists  in  pure 
self-contemplation :  koi  icrnv  ij  v6r](ns  vorjaews  vorjcris  {Metaph,.,  lib. 
xi.  0.  9).  This  is  Aristotle's  highest  conception  of  mind — in  other 
words,  of  the  Deity.  It  is  obviously  antagonistic  to  the  Christian 
idea,  which  represents  God  as  an  ever-active  Persou. 


MEANING   OF   THE   FI/RASE.  45 

pouring  Himself  out  into  the  spliere  of  clurivtitivcj 
life?  "My  Father  worketh  liithcrto,"  says  our  Lord, 
•and  I  work."  "  Worketh  hitherto  : "  it  is  the  present 
tense,  implying  that  God's  work  has  no  relation  to 
time,  but  belongs  to  the  perfection  of  the  Creator, 
with  Whom  is  no  past  or  future,  but  an  eternal  present. 
And  when  we  speak  of  creation  out  of  nothing,  do  we 
mean  by  nothing  an  absolute  vacuum  ?  Omnipotence, 
of  course,  can  do  anything.  Yet  we  do  not  tliink  of 
the  Omnipotent  God  as  existing  from  all  eternity  in 
a  blank  void,  and  then  surrounding  Himself  with 
created  beauty  ;  and  certainly  that  is  not  the  view  of 
Him  which  the  Bible  gives  us.  Three  things — prol  >- 
ably  different  names  for  one  attribute — arc  predi- 
cated of  Almighty  God  in  the  Bible :  "  light,"  "  glory," 
"  beauty,"  all  implying  objective  reality.  The  Psalmisi; 
speaks  of  God  "  covering  Himself  with  light  as  with 
a  garment,"  evidently  meaning  that  the  garment  is 
eternal.  St.  Paul  puts  the  matter  more  plainly  when 
he  describes  God  as  "dwelling  in  unapproachable 
light."  This  light  is  spoken  of  elsewhere  as  "  glory." 
In  Ezekiel  viii.  4  ;  ix.  3 ;  x.  10  ;  xliii.  2,  4,  "  the  glory 
of  the  God  of  Israel "  is  described  as  a  visible  token 
of  His  presence.  In  like  manner  "  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  shone  round  about "  the  shepherds  of  Betldchem 
on  the   night  of  our  Lord's  Nativity.     And  in  Rev. 


46  GOnS  ETERNAL    VESTURE, 

XV.  8  we  read :  "  And  the  temple  was  filled  with 
smoke  from  the  glory  of  God."  This  Shechinah,  or 
visible  manifestation  of  the  Divine  Presence,  accom- 
panied the  Israelites  through  their  forty  years'  wander- 
ings, and  "  dwelt  between  the  cherubims  of  glory 
shadowing  the  mercy-seat,"  until  the  destruction  of 
Solomon's  Temple.  The  "  light "  or  "  glory  "  in  which 
God  is  thus  eternally  arrayed  is  sometimes  described  as 
"beauty  "  (Job  xl.  10 ;  Ps.  xxvii.  4  ;  xc.  17  ;  Isa.  xxxiii. 
17).  Of  this  Divine  glory,  this  vesture  of  the  in- 
visible God,  the  universe  is  said  to  be  the  manifesta- 
tion (Ps.  xix.  1).  It  is  represented  as  something 
anterior  to  time,  and  as  shared  by  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  before  the  Avorld — the  determined  uni- 
verse— was.  Within  the  Triune  Godhead  are  doubt- 
less the  conditions  for  pure  love.  The  Persons  of  tlie 
Trinity  may  be  thought  of  as  loving  each  other  in 
timeless  peace  and  blessedness.  But  in  this  self-con- 
templation there  would  be  no  fertility  or  variety :  and 
absolute  love  is  surely  more  than  mere  complacency ;  it 
is  ever  active,  ever  producing.  Undoubtedly  we  must 
regard  the  universe  as  a  free  creation,  and  not  a  pro- 
cess metaphysically  necessary.  But  if  we  must  at 
the  same  time  regard  the  Divine  Being  as  loving,  and 
therefore  necessarily  active,  can  we  avoid  thinking  of 
a   universe    as    eternally   issuing,    not    by    absolute 


ALL   ORIGIN  IS  IXKXPLICABLE.  47 

necessity,  but  l>y  (umI's  free  determination  ?  In  otlicr 
words,  is  not  love,  tliougli  free,  self-necessitated  to 
create,  and  is  not  tliis  self-determination  the  highest 
form  of  freedom  ;  just  as,  in  the  language  of  one  of 
our  collects,  God's  "  service  "  is  described  as  "  perfect 
freedom "  ?  This  certainly  seems  to  have  been  St. 
Auerustine's  view  of  the  relation  of  the  Eternal  Creator 
to  the  universe.  But  in  truth  all  origin  is  inexplicable, 
and  the  connection  between  the  creation  and  the 
Creator  is  one  of  those  antinomies  of  faith  which  the 
human  reason  cannot  comprehend.^ 


'  Somo  sensation  was  made  in  tho  religious  world  a  few  years  ago 
by  a  book  called  The  Unseen  Universe,  in  which  it  was  argued,  both 
on  scientific  and  Christian  grounds,  that  tho  visible  universe  is  a 
development  from  an  unseen  spiritual  universe,  into  which  it  is 
being  gradually  reabsorbed.  The  uArf  (if  I  may  use  tho  expression), 
out  of  which  the  visible  universe  has  been  thus  developed,  tho 
distinguished  authors  regard  as  a  subtle  aether  existing  from  eternity, 
but  not  independent  of  God — on  the  contrary,  the  robe  in  which  tho 
Invisible  is  self-clothed  from  all  eternity.  Tho  authors  insist 
strongly  on  tho  doctrines  of  tho  Trinity  and  Incarnation,  assigning 
to  tho  Second  Person  of  tho  Trinity  tho  office  of  developing  tho 
energy  of  tho  unseen  universe,  and  to  the  Third,  as  "the  Lord  and 
Giver  of  life,"  that  of  developing  and  distributing  tlio  principle  of 
life.  The  doctrine  of  creation  out  of  nothing  is  enveloped  in  such 
impenetrable  mystery,  that  theologians  ought  surely  to  deal  tolerantly 
with  reverent  speculations  on  tho  subject,  so  long  as  such  specula- 
tions allow  that  the  whole  creation,  visible  and  invisible,  is  dependent 
on  and  subject  to  tho  will  of  tho  Almighty  Creator.  Among  tho 
Scriptural  passages  which  the  authors  of  The  Unseen  Unirerse  quote 
in   support  of  their  view  is    St.   Paul's  saying,    that   *'  tho   things 


48  CREATION  THE   CHIEF  MIRACLE. 

Some  people  talk  about  the  incredibility  of  miracles. 
What  miracle  can  be  compared  to  that  of  creation, 
however  you  view  it  ?  The  wonderful  thing  is  not 
that  there  should  be  an  occasional  counteraction  of 
the  ordinary  movements  of  natural  forces,  but  that 
these  forces  should  have  come  into  existence.  The 
ffreat  miracle  is  the  beorinninor  of  thino^s.  Once  admit 
this,  as  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind  obliges 
us  to  do,  and  the  question  of  miracles  becomes  a  mere 
question  of  evidence ;  antecedent  objection  there  can 
be  none.  The  Being  Who  made  the  universe  is  neces- 
sarily free  to  manipulate  its  processes  at  His  discretion ; 
and  to  doubt  either  His  ability  to  do  so,  or  His  willing- 
ness for  adequate  reasons,  is  an  impertinence  on  the 
part  of  man.  But  I  am  not  going  into  the  question  of 
miracles  at  present,  though  I  may  have  occasion  to  do 
so  later  on. 

And  now  let  us  o-o  back  for  a  moment  to  the  idea 

which  are  seen  are  temporal,  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are 
eternal."  "Eternal"  may  here,  however,  mean  endless.  A  moro 
apposite  passage,  as  I  have  tried,  to  show  in  the  text,  is  that  in 
which  God  the  Father  is  described  as  "  dwelling  in  light  unapproach- 
able ;  Whom  no  man  hath  seen  or  can  see."  We  are  evidently  to 
understand  this  "unapproachable  light"  as  an  eternal  vesture  of 
God,  coeval  with  Himself.  Physical  science  does  not  yet  appear 
to  have  said  its  last  word  on  the  nature  and  attributes  of  light,  and 
there  can  surely  be  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  true  Christian 
temper  in  such  devout  exercise  of  the  human  reason  as  we  find  in 
The  Unseen  Universe.     See  Appendix,  p.  324. 


CREATIONS  BY  MAN.  49 

of  creation  out  of  notliing  It  is  clou])tless  a  be- 
wildering idea,  one  that  our  reason  cannot  comptiss. 
I  mean  creation  in  the  sense  in  which  I  have  just 
explained  it.  Is  it  absolutely  unthinkable  ?  Have  we 
anything  at  all  analogous  to  it  in  our  own  experience  ? 
Can  man  be  said  in  any  sense  to  create  out  of  nothing  ? 
Surely  he  may,  though  not  in  the  absolute  sense  in 
which  we  predicate  creation  of  God.  What  is  a  great 
poem,  a  great  painting,  a  great  statue,  a  great  musical 
composition,  but  a  creation  out  of  nothing  beyond  the 
human  mind  and  its  experiences  ?  Creation  is  not 
necessarily  confined  to  what  we  call  matter;  the 
word  embraces  moral  and  intellectual  existences. 
Take  a  play  of  Shakespeare — "  Hamlet,"  for  example. 
The  Prince  of  Denmark  is  a  real  creation,  and 
so  are  the  other  characters  in  the  play.  They  leave 
vivid  impressions  on  the  mind.  They  interest  us 
like  real  men  and  women.  We  can  study  their 
actions,  analyze  their  motives,  feel  resentment  or 
pity  at  the  development  of  the  plot — in  short,  they 
exercise  our  imaginations,  feelings,  and  reasoning 
faculty  like  ordinary  human  beings :  they  are  cha- 
racters evolved  out  of  the  poet's  creative  mind,  and 
are  as  distinct  possessions  of  the  understanding  as 
any  historical  chararacters.  A  masterpiece  of  music 
or    painting    is    likewise    a    creation    of    the    same 


50  GENERIC  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN 

kind,  a  fact  in  the  world  of  ideas,  in  the  sphere 
of  intellect,  which  previously  had  no  existence.  Of 
course,  there  is  this  fundamental  difference  between 
Divine  and  human  creations,  that  human  creations 
cannot  pass  beyond  the  stage  of  ideas,  cannot  become 
actualized,  without  the  aid  of  pre-existing  materials. 

Man  is,  therefore,  in  a  subordinate  sense,  a  creator 
— "  a  kind  of  god,"  as  Bacon  calls  him  ;  and  this  he  is 
in  virtue  of  his  having  been  made  originally  in  the 
imaofe  of  his  Maker.  And  as  this  attribute  makes 
man  in  a  manner  a  sharer  of  Divine  Power,  so  it 
differentiates  him  by  an  impassable  gulf  from  the 
animal  world.  There  is  nothing  among  the  animals 
which  corresponds  to  the  creative  power  of  man. 
Animals  are  ruled  by  instincts,  which  vary  in- 
definitely, and  which  sometimes — especially  in  the 
case  of  animals  brought  under  the  civilizing  influence 
of  man — approach  the  confines  of  reason.  Animal 
instinct  is,  in  its  own  way  and  within  its  own  limits, 
more  perfect  than  the  reason  of  man.  Human  reason 
is  a  faculty  which  is  gradually  developed.  It  is 
dormant  in  the  child,  and  is  educated  by  teaching 
and  experience.  But  the  instinct  of  the  animal  is 
perfect  from  the  beginning ;  it  requires  no  education 
and  no  experience  to  develop  it.  The  bee  constructs 
its  hive  on  the  most  perfect  mathematical  principles 


HUMAN  REASON  AND  ANIMAL   INSTINCTS.        51 

without  any  previous  training;  but  it  cannot  apply 
its  mathematics  to  any  other  purpose.  The  bird 
builds  its  nest  and  the  beaver  its  dam  without  any 
previous  apprenticeship,  and  they  will  go  on  building 
them  when  there  is  no  occasion.  Bees,  moreover,  and 
squirrels,  and  other  insects  and  animals,  make  pnj- 
vision  for  the  winter,  storing  up  the  necessary  food 
against  the  time  when  it  cannot  otherwise  be  pro- 
cured; and  this  they  will  do  without  any  previous 
experience  of  fruitful  and  unfruitful  seasons.  A 
certain  kind  of  wasp  stings  a  spider  in  the  main 
nerve,  paralysing  but  not  killing  it ;  and  then  deposits 
it  in  its  nest,  where  it  remains  motionless  and  fresh 
for  the  young  wasps  to  feed  on  when  they  are  hatched. 
Where  did  the  wasp  learn  its  knowledge  of  anatomy 
and  physiology  to  sting  always  in  the  necessary  place, 
and  to  inject  just  enough  poison  to  paralyse  but  not 
to  kill  ?  How,  too,  does  it  select  the  proper  food  for 
its  young  offspring — food  on  which  it  does  not  itself 
feed  ?  There  is  no  reason  here,  any  more  than  in  tlie 
insectivorous  plant  which  clutches  and  devours  its 
prey,  or  in  the  sprig  of  ivy  which  unfailingly  detects 
the  crevice  in  the  wall.  It  is  in  both  cases  a  blind 
instinct  working  for  an  end  which  it  does  not  foresee. 
It  is  a  mechanical  movement  impelled  and  guided  by 
an  external  force,  not  a  self -originating  power  like 


52  MAN  A   PROGRESSIVE   CREATURE, 

man's  self-conscious  rational  will,  intending  what  it 
does  and  using  the  appropriate  means. 

Another  g-eneric  difference  between  man  and  the  in- 
f erior  animals  is  that  he  is  capable  of  indefinite  self- 
improvement,  of  which  there  is  not  a  trace  in  them. 
Under  man's  controlling  skill  and  discipline,  indeed, 
both  vegetable  and  animal  life  is  susceptible  of 
extraordinary  improvement.  Man,  who  is  a  kind  of 
god  to  the  lower  creation,  takes  plants  and  animals 
in  hand  and  raises  them  far  above  their  unaided 
natural  capacities.  But  the  moment  he  withdraws 
his  developing  and  regulating  mind  a  process  of 
degeneration  immediately  sets  in,  and  the  animal  or 
plant  lapses  to  its  primitive  condition,  and  there 
remains.  This  tendency  of  reversion  to  original  type 
is  admitted  by  Darwin,  as  in  the  case  of  the  different 
varieties  of  pigeons,  which,  if  left  to  themselves,  will 
invariably  return  to  the  parent  type  of  the  rock 
pigeon.  In  this  fact  we  note  a  serious  flaw  in  the 
theory  of  the  transmutation  of  species — a  theory 
for  which  there  is  as  yet  no  evidence,  and  which  is 
not  necessarily  convertible  with  evolution.  But  with- 
out going  further  into  that  point  now,  we  see  clearly 
that  both  plants  and  animals  are  under  mechanical 
guidance  which  suffices  for  their  needs,  but  bars 
progress.      The  range  of  choice  is  bounded  by  the 


THE  LOWER   CREATION  NON-PROGRESSIVE.        53 

limitations  of  tlie  instinct  under  which  the  animal  is 
compelled  to  do  its  work.  It  acts  from  an  irresistible 
impulse  without  any  independent  power  to  do  or  to 
forbear.  This  fundamental  distinction  between  man 
and  the  animal  creation  is  vividly  expressed  by  the 
Psalmist  when  he  speaks  of  the  lower  creation  as 
held  in  the  fetters  of  an  inflexible  law,  in  contrast 
with  man,  who  is  not  in  the  grip  of  a  mechanical 
necessity,  but  under  the  guidance  of  a  moral  law. 
Horse  and  mule  must  be  "  held  with  bit  and  bridle 
because  they  have  no  understanding;"  but  man  is 
free,  and  to  him  therefore  it  is  said,  "  I  will  guide 
thee  with  Mine  eye."  The  story  of  Moses  and  the 
Burning  Bush  on  Horeb  is  another  illustration  of  the 
same  truth.  Why  was  Moses  urgently  warned  not 
to  approach  the  wonderful  sight,  and  to  treat  even 
the  precincts  of  the  Divine  Presence  with  reverence 
as  "  holy  ground  "  ?  Because  God  is  a  consuming 
fire  to  all  that  is  antagonistic  to  Him.  Nature  is  not 
antagonistic.  She  obeys  the  laws  imposed  upon  her 
in  the  beginning.  She  can  therefore  bear  unscathed 
the  flame  of  the  Divine  Presence.  But  man  was 
made  in  the  ima^re  of  His  Maker,  and  in  virtue  of 
that  endowment  enjoys  the  awful  prerogative  of  free 
will,  whereby  he  can  successfully  resist  the  will  of 
Omnipotence.       There    are    some    things    which — we 


54  1^0 W  MAN  CAN'  KNOW  GOD. 

may  say  it  with  reverence — Almighty  God  cannot  do. 
He  cannot  lie.  He  cannot  contradict  any  of  His  own 
attributes.  He  cannot  violate  the  harmony  of  His 
being.  He  cannot  defeat,  like  erring  man,  any  of  His 
own  purposes.  Having  dowered  man  with  free  will, 
He  must  leave  him  free  to  choose.  And  man  often 
chooses  to  oppose  the  will  of  Him  Who  made  him. 
Even  the  best  of  men  are  not  altogether  free  in  this 
world  from  the  evil  bias  of  self-will,  and  being  thus 
in  a  state  of  antagonism  to  the  Divine  will,  God  is 
necessarily  a  consuming  fire  to  them. 

Now  what  is  the  faculty  by  means  of  which  man  is 
enabled  to  know  God  ?  Does  he  need  a  penetrating 
intellect,  a  soaring  imagination,  or  great  learning  ? 
If  he  did,  the  knowledge  would  of  necessity  be 
confined  to  comparatively  few,  and,  moreover,  we 
should  expect  to  find  that  knowledge  of  the  spiritual 
world  increased  according  to  man's  intellectual  power 
and  learning.  But  this  is  far  from  being  the  case. 
"  What  sages  would  have  died  to  learn  is  taught  by 
cottage  dames."  "  Mysteries,"  says  the  wise  man, 
"are  revealed  unto  the  meek."  The  faculty  which 
enables  man  to  apprehend  God  is  described  in  Holy 
Scripture  sometimes  as  faith  and  sometimes  as 
purity  of  heart.  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  m  heart,  for 
they  shall  see   God."     What  did  our  Lord  mean  by 


ILLUSTRATIONS  FROM  NATURE.  55 

tliat  benediction  and  promise?  Consider  the  world 
around  you,  and  you  will  find,  in  fact,  a  series  of 
worlds  enfolded  one  within  the  other;  and  it 
requires  in  all  cases  trained  faculties,  and,  in  some, 
special  faculties,  to  descry  "the  mystic  heaven  and 
earth  within,  clear  as  the  sea  and  sky "  to  him  who 
possesses  the  educated  eye  or  the  special  faculty.  In 
the  confiofuration  of  mountains  and  the  formation  of 
rocks  the  uneducated  eye  sees  nothing  more  than 
appears  upon  the  surface.  The  geoloi^ist  surveys  the 
same  scene  and  spells  out  the  complex  history  of 
extinct  worlds.  The  uneducated  eye  looks  up  into 
the  vault  of  heaven  when  the  sky  is  cloudless  and 
the  firmament  thick -set  with  stars,  and  sees  nothing 
but  tiny  specks  of  light,  in  parts  so  close  together  as 
hardly  to  admit  the  insertion  of  a  finger's  point 
between  star  and  star.  The  astronomer  gazes  on  the 
same  scene,  and  beholds  another  vision — interstellar 
spaces  so  vast  that  it  takes  years  for  a  ray  of  light, 
travelling  with  lightning  speed,  to  pass  from  one  star 
to  another ;  while  the  stars  themselves,  that  seem  so 
small,  are  immeasurably  larger  than  our  earth.  But 
Nature  has  secrets  wdiich  scientific  knowledge  alone 
can  never  discover— special  faculties  are  needed.  The 
man  of  science  sees  the  glory  of  the  dawn,  the  pensive 
beauty  of  sunset,  the  gracefulness  of  waving  forests, 


56  PROBLEM  OF  EXISTENCE   OF  EVIL 

the  sublime  forms  of  lofty  mountains,  the  majesty  of 
the  ocean,  the  form  of  "  the  human  face  divine,"  and 
he  can  tell  us  much  that  is  interesting  about  them 
all.  The  artist  sees  the  same  things,  and  discovers  in 
them  much  that  had  escaped  the  vision  of  the  man  of 
science.  The  poet  follows  both,  and  finds  yet  another 
world  which  neither  artist  nor  man  of  science  beheld, 
and  he  embodies  his  vision  in  immortal  song.  Multi- 
tudes of  human  beings  had  for  years  watched  the 
agony' of  dying  gladiators  in  the  arena,  and  made  of 
it  a  Roman  holiday.  The  pathos  of  the  scene  one 
day  appealed  to  the  pity  of  an  artist.  He  saw  more 
than  the  brutal  throng,  and  embodied  his  vision  in 
imperishable  marble.  Centuries  passed,  and  a  great 
English  poet  looked  on  that  dumb  yet  speaking 
marble,  and  he  saw  in  those  dying  eyes  more,  prob- 
ably, than  the  artist  had  consciously  put  into  them — 
a  Dacian  captive,  oblivious  of  the  present  scene,  but 
mindful  of  a  distant  home,  and  a  loved  wdfe,  with 
"  his  young  barbarians  all  at  play,"  far  away  by  the 
shining  Danube.  The  promise  of  Christ  carries  us  a 
step  further.  It  tells  of  a  world  not  far  away,  but 
underlying  the  world  of  sense — a  world  of  beauty 
beyond  the  ken  of  science  and  beyond  the  dreams 
of  poet  or  of  artist;  and  it  says  that  this  world 
too  needs  a  special  faculty  to  see  it,  but  a  faculty. 


AXD   A   fyESEFICENT  CREATOR.  57 

within  tlie  reacli  of  all — a  pure  lieart  and   a  docile 
spirit. 

But  if  the  Fatlior  Ahnii^hty  is  also  "  the  Maker 
of  heaven  and  earth  and  of  all  things  visible  and 
invisible,"  are  we  not  confronted  by  a  formidable 
difficulty  ?  How  shall  we  reconcile  this  article  of 
faith  with  the  origin  and  continuance  of  evil,  with 
the  unmerited  suffering  of  innocence  and  the  frequent 
triumph  of  wrong  ?  The  moral  world  is  full  of 
enigmas  which  seem  insoluble  on  the  hypothesis  of 
a  righteous  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  universe. 
Well,  but  are  they  soluble  on  any  other  hypothesis  ? 
What  has  Agnosticism  got  to  say  to  them  ?  Nothing, 
as  the  word  implies.  And  Pantheism  ?  It  too  is 
dumb.  The  difficulties  are  not  caused  by  Chris- 
tianity ;  they  preceded  it  and  are  independent  of  it. 
They  exist  and  must  be  reckoned  with.  Christianity, 
at  all  events,  faces  them  and  offers  an  explanation  and 
a  solution,  although  it  does  not  promise  to  explain 
every  difficulty.  In  the  first  place,  we  must  re- 
member that  we  are  here  in  a  very  small  corner  of  a 
vast  system,  and  are  therefore  not  qualified  to  pass 
judgment  on  the  system  as  a  whole.  A  man,  born 
and  immured  all  his  life  in  a  narrow  room  in  a  huge 
]ialace  of  many  stories  and  endless  chambers,  is  no 
fit  judge  of   the   architecture   and    internal  arrange- 


58        ST.  AUGUSTINE  ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  EVIL. 

ments  of  the  building.  He  must  traverse  its  interior 
in  all  its  parts,  and  must  also  go  outside  and  walk 
round  about  it,  as  the  Psalmist  walked  round  the 
Temple  on  Mount  Sion,  before  he  can  appreciate  its 
architectural  lines  and  harmonious  proportions.  Now 
we  are  inside  God's  system  of  government ;  occupying 
a  tiny  portion  of  it.  Does  it  not  stand  to  reason  that 
multitudes  of  things  which  now  perplex  and  baffle  us, 
as  we  examine  them  from  the  little  skylight  of  our 
limited  and  fallible  understanding,  would  appear 
plain  enough  if  we  could  only  see  them  from  outside  ? 
Let  us  then  in  this  spirit  glance  at  the  origin  and 
prevalence  of  evil.  God  is  not  the  author  of  it ;  and 
yet  the  possibility  of  evil  is  latent  in  the  possibility 
of  virtue  or  moral  goodness.^     Moral  goodness  is  im- 

*  Afriend,  to  whose  stimulating  and  acute  raind  these  Lectures  are 
much  indebted,  has  called  my  attention  to  another  aspect  of  the 
question,  as  suggested  in  the  following  passages  from  St.  Augustine's 
"  Confessions  " — especially  the  following — as  apposite  here  : — "  And 
it  became  clear  to  me  that  those  things  are  good  which  yet  are  cor- 
rupted ;  for  if  supremely  good,  they  would  be  incorruptible ;  if  not 
good  at  all,  there  would  be  nothing  to  be  corrupted.  For  corruption 
damages ;  biit  unless  it  lessened  goodness,  it  could  not  damage. 
Either  then  corruption  does  not  damage,  which  cannot  be ;  or,  which 
is  most  certain,  all  things  which  are  corrupted  are  thereby  deprived 
of  some  good.  But  if  they  are  deprived  of  all  good,  they  must  alto- 
gether cease  to  exist ;  for  if  they  continued  to  exist  and  were  no 
longer  able  to  be  corrupted,  they  would  be  better  than  they  were 
before,  because  they  would  remain  in  a  state  of  incorruptibility. 
But  what  more  monstrous  than  to  afl^m  that  a  thing  has  become 


EVIL    THE   CORRELATIVE   OF  FREE    WILL.         59 

possible,  or  evil  is  possible.  For  virtue  or  goodness 
implies  freedom  of  choice — that  belongs  to  its  essence; 
freedom  of  choice  implies  the  possibility  of  making 
a  wrong  choice  ;  and  a  wrong  choice  persevered  in 
may  harden  into  an  inflexible  character  which  even 
heathen  philosophy  could  see  might  become  incorri- 
gible. God  could  doubtless  have  created  beings  who 
should  follow  the  rule  of  right  under  the  pressure 
of  an  irresistible  force.  But  such  beings  would  not  be 
free  agents,  and  therefore  could  not  be  the  subjects  of 
a  moral  law.  Morality,  goodness,  holiness,  could  not 
be  predicated  of  them  ;  for  these  are  qualities  which 
are  inseparable  from  free  w411.  Neither  plants  nor 
animals  can  possess  them.  These  you  may  call 
beautiful  and  useful ;  but  you  cannot  call  them  good 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word ;  for  goodness  implies 
self-determined  effort,  and  that  necessitates  free  will. 
So  far  we  can  see,  but  no  further.  God  having 
resolved  to  create  beings  capable  of  offering  Him  a 

better  by  losing  all  the  pood  it  possessed  ?  Therefore  thinj^s  deprived 
of  all  good  cease  to  exist ;  and,  consequently,  as  long  as  they  exist 
they  are  good  ;  and  further,  therefore,  whatever  is  is  good.  That 
evil  then,  the  origin  of  which  I  had  been  searching  out,  had  no  being 
of  its  own  ;  for  had  it  a  being,  it  would  be  good  "  (Bk.  vii.  ch.  12). 
Evil  has  thus  no  substantial  existence  :  it  is  simply  the  absence  of 
good.  Aquinas  develops  the  thought  into  (1)  negative— mere  absence 
of  good ;  (2)  privative— the  taking  away  of  goodness  from  something 
that  had  enjoyed  it;  (3)  oasequently  the  iutruaion  of  a  positive 
element  of  corruption- 


6o  POSSIBLE  SOLUTION  HEREAFTER. 

free  and  willing  service,  the  possibility  of  going 
wrong  seems  to  follow  as  a  logical  consequence.  We 
can  thus  see  the  two  terms  of  the  problem,  but  not 
their  point  of  union.  It  may  be  that  a  more 
elevated  vision  would  enable  us  to  solve  the  riddle, 
and  perhaps  we  shall  find  that  there  is  no  riddle  at 
all  to  solve  "  when  the  day  breaks  and  the  shadows 
flee  away."  Of  one  thing  at  least  we  may  be  sure, 
namely,  that  the  more  we  cultivate  purity  of  heart, 
singleness  of  aim,  and  unselfishness  in  all  things,  the 
less  likely  are  we  to  be  troubled  by  any  of  the  moral 
and  intellectual  difficulties  which  are  more  or  less 
inseparable  from  our  present  life,  and  are  probably 
a  necessary  element  in  our  moral  discipline. 


IV. 

"The  Father  AL>HGnTY." 

PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 

We  have  got  so  far  as  this,  that  the  Universe  came 
into  existence  by  the  creative  will  of  a  Personal 
Being,  Who  is  eternal,  infinite,  almighty,  and  the 
Father  of  all.  We  are  now  to  consider  this  great 
Being  in  Himself ;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  way  in  which 
He  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  Himself  to  us.  But  here 
we  are  challenged  by  an  objection  on  the  threshold  of 
the  argument.  It  is  said  that  there  is  no  such  revela- 
tion of  Almighty  God  as  I  have  described ;  that  nature 
reveals  to  us  only  an  impersonal  force ;  and  that  the 
God  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not  represented  there  as 
a  Personal  Being  at  all,  but  merely  as  a  stream  of 
tendencies.  I  have  already  dealt  with  the  evidence 
which  nature  presents  to  the  human  luiiid  of  bcini^ 
the  product  of  an  almighty  Personal  Creator,  an<l  I 
need  not  go  back  upon  it.  But  what  says  the  Old 
Testament?     Is  it  true  that  th«^  God  of  the  Hebrews 


62  MATTHEW  ARNOLD'S  OPINION. 

as  we  read  of  Him  in  the  Old  Testament  is  not  a 
Personal  Being,  and  that  language  which  to  ordinary 
minds  seems  to  appeal  to  a  Personal  Being  points  to  a 
mere  stream  of  tendencies — emotions  thrown  out  in 
poetic  form  and  with  poetic  licence  at  an  abstract  im- 
personal something,  external  to  ourselves,  "which 
makes  for  righteousness  "  ?  Such  is  the  view  gravely 
propounded  some  years  ago  in  a  popular  volume,  called 
Literature  and  Dogma,  by  the  late  Mr.  Matthew 
Arnold,  a  gentle  and  an  attractive  spirit  whom  it  was 
impossible  to  know  without  loving,  and  of  whom  I 
shall  never  speak  or  think  without  respect  and 
affection.  But  Matthew  Arnold  was  far  too  true  a 
man  to  wish  that  any  friend  of  his  should,  out  of  con- 
sideration for  himself,  shrink  from  criticizing  frankly 
and  honestly  any  view  he  might  put  forth.  I  shall 
not  hesitate,  therefore,  to  express  my  surprise  that 
a  man  of  his  intellectual  power  and  critical  acumen 
should  have  propounded  a  view  which  seems  to  me 
altogether  inconsistent  with  the  language  of  the 
Old  Testament.  I  can  understand,  indeed,  quite  an 
opposite  view  of  the  representation  of  Almighty  God 
given  to  us  there.  I  can  understand  the  Old  Testa- 
ment being  charged  with  encouraging  anthropo- 
morphic views  of  Almighty  God,  ascribing  to  Him 
the  feelings   and   attributes   of   man,   and   regarding 


APPEAL    TO   OLD    TESTAMENT.  63 

Him  as  a  kind  of  tribal  Deity  Who  watched  witli 
])ers()nal  solicitude  over  the  fortunes  of  Israel.  But 
to  say  that  the  Hebrews,  as  they  are  portrayed  in  the 
Old  Testament,  did  not  regard  their  God  as  a  person 
at  all,  but  as  a  mere  impersonal  energy,  as  a  stream 
of  tendencies,  as  an  unintelligent  force  external  to 
themselves  that  made  for  righteousness,  is  a  proposition 
which  seems  to  me  so  amazing  as  hardly  to  be  worth 
criticizing,  had  it  not  been  published  by  a  man  of  the 
great  reputation  of  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold,  and  had  it 
not  at  the  same  time  seemed  to  have  recommended 
itself  to  the  acceptance  of  some  intelligent  minds. 

Let  us  consider,  then,  this  opinion  in  the  light  of  a 
few  cardinal  facts  in  the  Old  Testament.  Look  at 
the  history  of  the  Patriarchs.  What  view  do  we 
find  there  of  Almighty  God,  and  how  do  the 
Patiiarchs  regard  Him  ?  What  were  Abraham's 
relations  with  God?  Were  they  the  relations  of  a 
human  being  towards  a  stream  of  tendencies  ?  God  is 
represented  as  announcing  to  Abraham,  who  was  then 
old  and  childless,  and  whose  wife  was  past  the  age  of 
child-bearing,  that  his  seed  should  hereafter  be  num- 
berless, like  the  stars  of  heaven  and  like  the  sand  on 
the  beach.  Afterwards  two  angelic  visitants  appear 
to  him  and  foretell  the  birth  of  a  son,  to  the  in- 
credulous surprise  of   Abraham's   wife.      In    another 


64  ABRAHAM  AND  JACOB. 

place  we  have  a  dramatic  account  of  a  conversation 
between  God  and  Abraham  about  the  coming  doom  of 
Sodom.  The  Patriarch  pleads  for  the  doomed  city, 
and  the  Almighty  answers  him.  And  we  are  to 
believe  that  in  all  this  Abraham  knew,  and  his 
descendants  knew,  that  he  was  holding  a  colloquy 
with  an  impersonal  influence  of  which  the  fittest 
designation  is  "  the  Eternal  not  ourselves  which  makes 
for  righteousness  "  !  Look  again  at  the  history  of 
Jacob.  How  did  he  regard  Almighty  God  ?  As  a 
Personal  Being  ?  or  as  a  stream  of  tendencies  ? 
Evidently  as  a  Person.  He  erects  an  altar  to  Him. 
He  prays  to  Him.  He  makes  promises  to  Him  and 
votive  offerings.  And  on  his  return  to  his  father's 
home  he  wrestles  with  a  mysterious  Person  whom  he 
refuses  to  let  go  until  He  has  left  him  a  blessing ;  and 
the  mysterious  wrestler  refuses  to  give  His  name,  but 
changes  Jacob's  name  to  Israel,  thereby  revealing 
indirectly  His  own:  "For  as  a  prince  hast  thou 
power  with  God  and  with  man,  and  hast  prevailed." 
"  And  Jacob  called  the  name  of  the  place  Peniel ;  for 
I  have  seen  God  face  to  face,  and  my  life  is  preserved." 
I  am  not  now  discussing  the  interpretation  or  the 
sio^nificance  of  this  incident  in  the  life  of  Jacob.  I 
merely  ask  if  it  is  conceivable  that  the  writer  of 
that  passage  or  the  generations  of  Israelites  who  read 


yOSEPlfS  IDEA    OF   GOD.  65 

it  from  age  to  age  believed  that  the  Being  \vlio  is 
represented  as  wrestling  with  Jacob  was  simply  a 
stream  of  tendencies— a  blind  movement  of  moral 
forces  ?  Jacob  lived  doubtless  in  an  early  stage  of 
the  world's  spiritual  development ;  but  he  was  not  so 
stupid  as  to  build  an  altar,  and  offer  prayers,  and 
make  promises  to  a  stream  of  tendencies.  Nor  was 
he  likely  to  represent  himself  as  wrestling  and 
talking  with  a  Personal  Presence,  Who  gave  him  a 
new  name  and  left  His  mark  permanently  on  his 
body,  when  all  the  while  he  merely  meant  that  his 
soul  was  under  the  influence  of  a  poetic  afflatus. 
The  history  of  Joseph  supplies  a  still  clearer  illustra- 
tion. What  was  it  that  saved  him  in  the  hour  of  his 
great  temptation  ?  He  was  not  unmindful  of  his 
duty  to  Potiphar.  But  the  great  restraining  motive 
is  revealed  in  his  question  : — "  How  can  I  do  this 
2rreat  wickedness,  and  sin  against  God  ? "  Not  ajrainst 
Potiphar,  you  see — though  Joseph  had  not  forgotten 
him — but  against  God,  the  Lord  and  Master  alike  of 
Potiphar  and  Joseph.  Potiphar  sinks  into  compara- 
tive insignificance  in  view  of  the  Great  Personal 
Presence,  Who  had  protected  Joseph,  and  to  Whom 
-losoph  felt  that  he  owed  unswerving  allegiance. 
"  How  can  I  do  this  great  wickedness,  and  sin  against 
God  ? "     Sin    implies  a  person.      You  may  violate  a 


66  MOSES  AT  THE  BURNING  BUSH. 

law,  you  may  oppose  a  force ;  but  sin  is  necessarily 
committed  against  a  person.  You  may  resist  the  law 
of  gravitation ;  but  you  cannot  sin  against  it.  You 
may  swim  against  a  stream ;  but  you  cannot  sin 
against  it.  Righteousness  is  inseparable  from  perso- 
nality. You  cannot  imagine  a  righteousness  which 
should  not  be  personal.  Joseph's  answer  to  Potiphar's 
Avife  is  alone,  therefore,  a  clear  proof  that  he  regarded 
the  God  of  Israel  as  a  Personal  Being,  and  not  simply?- 
as  an  impersonal  current  bearing  him  along  in  the 
direction  of  righteousness.  My  next  instance  is  the 
vision  of  the  Burning  Bush  to  Moses  on  Mount  Horeb. 
When  Moses  draws  near  to  see  the  wonderful  sight,  a 
voice,  which  presently  proclaims  itself  as  that  of 
Jehovah,  warns  him  off,  and  bids  him  uncover  his  feet 
because  the  place  whereon  he  stands  is  sanctified  by 
its  vicinity  to  the  visible  symbol  of  God's  Presence. 
Besides,  the  whole  history  of  the  Exodus  is  quite  irre- 
concilable with  the  notion  that  the  Israelites  believed, 
not  in  a  Personal  God,  but  in  a  stream  of  tendencies. 
And  what  shall  we  say  of  David  ?  Take  his  pas- 
sionate outburst  of  penitence  in  the  fifty-first  Psalm, 
when  his  slumbering  conscience  w^as  roused  by  the 
prophet's  exquisitely  beautiful  parable  of  the  poor 
man's  ewe  lamb,  which  the  rich  man,  possessed  of 
''many  flocks  and  herds,"  had  slaughtered  in  order 


OTHER  EXAMPLES  OF  JEWISH  EELIEF.  67 

to  spare  liis  own.  In  tlic  a^^(^iiy  <»f  his  i-cinorsc 
David  forn^ot  Uriah  and  JJatlislieha  and  liis  cliild 
— tlie  cliild  of  <ijuilt  and  shaino.  I  lis  all-ahsoi-lt- 
ing  fcclinLC,  the  iVclini;'  tliat  sniotc  liini  with  jx-ni- 
tcntial  agony,  was  the  wrong  In;  had  done  to  (Jod, 
his  black  ingi-atitudc  to  tlu-  gracious  Jjcing  Who  had 
watched  over  him  as  he  tended  liis  father's  flocks 
upon  the  Iiills  of  Bethlehem — the  Being  Who  had 
ilelivered  In'in  from  the  paw  of  the  linn  an<l  the 
hear,  and  from  the  swoi-d  of  (Joliath.  "Against 
Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned,  and  done  this  evil  in 
Thy  sight;"  that  was  the  thought  that  tilled  David's 
suul  with  anguish.  Examples  might  be  multiplied 
indefinitely,  but  one  moi'c  will  suffice — that  of  the. 
Patriarch  Job.  Who  can  read  the  controversy  d<> 
scribed  in  that  highly  dramatic  poem  and  suppose 
ihat  Job  and  his  would-lje  comforters  did  not  believe 
in  a  Personal  Governor  of  tlu;  universe  ?  Why,  the 
redeeming  (juality  of  some  of  the  Old  Testament 
saints — men  of  mixed  character — was  their  intense 
realization  of  the  spiritual  world  and  its  Personal 
Ruler,  AVhom  they  believed  to  be  supreme  over  the 
forces  of  Xatui'e  and  the  destinies  of  men.  Jacob  was 
a  man  of  craft  and  gr.ile,  mingled  with  tender  and 
persistent  affections;  but  he  was  also  a  man  who 
could    look    through     the    world    of    sense    into    tlio 


68  OLD   TESTAMENT  DESCRIPTIONS 

spiritual  world  beyond,  with  its  angelic  inhabitants 
and  Supreme  Ruler  ;  and  this  spiritual  insight  enabled 
him  gradually  to  purge  his  character  of  all  that  was 
mean  and  false.  And  why  is  David  called  so  em- 
phatically "  a  man  after  God's  heart "  ?  His  life  was 
stained  by  atrocious  crimes  —  treachery,  adultery, 
murder.  Yet  still,  and  spite  of  all,  he  is  called  a  man 
after  God's  heart.  Why  ?  Because  he  too  had  the 
root  of  the  matter  in  him  ;  because,  with  all  his  sins, 
he  had  vivid  faith  in  a  spiritual  world  that  was 
governed  by  a  righteous  Ruler,  with  Whom  he,  the- 
shepherd  boy  of  Bethlehem  and  King  of  Israel,  had 
personal  relations.  There  is  always  hope  for  a  man 
who  believes  in  that  great  truth,  however  grievous 
may  be  his  falls,  and  it  was  David's  extraordinarily 
clear  perception  of  it  that  enabled  him  to  recover  so 
quickly  his  spiritual  integrity,  and  made  him  a  man 
after  God's  own  heart. 

Then  think  of  some  of  the  Old  Testament  descrip- 
tions of  the  God  of  Israel,  and  you  will  find  nothing 
in  any  literature  surpassing  them  in  the  exquisite 
tenderness  of  their  pathos.  In  one  place  we  find  Him 
compared  to  an  eagle  teaching  her  young  how  to  fiy  ; 
flinging  them  out  of  the  nest  into  the  air  that  they 
may  practise  their  pinions,  and  then,  when  they  are 
exhausted  and   fallincr   to  the   earth,  darting   under 


OF  GOD  IMPLY  A   PERSON.  69 

them  with  outspread  wings  and  bearing  tlieni  aloft  in 
safety.  In  otlicr  places  He  is  pictured  as  a  tender 
shepherd  watching  over  His  liock,  guiding  them  to 
green  pastures  and  refreshing  streams,  bearing  tlie 
lambs  in  His  bosom  and  gently  leading  the  sheep  that 
are  with  young.  And  then  again  we  find  His  relations 
to  Israel  imaged  under  those  that  unite  bridegroom 
and  bride.  Is  it  conceivable  that  a  people  whoso 
imaginations  were  fed  on  such  teaching  as  this,  whose 
whole  character  was  steeped  in  the  doctrine  of  personal 
relations  with  Jehovah,  never  thought  of  Him  as  a 
Person  at  all,  but  merely  as  a  stream  of  tendencies  ? 
The  marvel  is  that  any  one  capable  of  critical  ex- 
amination and  reflection  should  over  have  thought  so. 
It  is  much  nearer  the  truth  to  say,  with  Arthur 
Hallam,^  that  those  old  Hebrews  loved  their  God  witli 
a  personal  passionate  devotion  so  ardent  as  to  bo 
almost  "  erotic "  in  its  fervour.  It  was  a  love  pure, 
unmercenary,  and  elevating.  The  God  of  the  Hebrews 
was  neither  a  cold  abstraction  dwelling  apart  from 
His  creatures  in  Epicurean  unconcern,  nor  a  caprici(nis 
divinity  who  must  be  kept  in  good  humour  by  an 
elaborate  system  of  bribes;  but  a  Being  of  tender 
affections,  Who  watched  over  the  fatherless  and 
defended  the  cause  of  the  widow  ;  Wlio  loved  justice 
»  J2e7natn.s-,  pp.  277,  278. 


yo  THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

and  mercy  and  would  "by  no  means  clear  the  guilty;" 
Whose  "  mercy  was  over  all  His  works,"  forbidding  to 
"muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn,"  or  to 
"  seethe  the  kid  in  its  mother's  milk,"  or  to  carry  oft 
the  dam  bird  while  nursing  her  brood.  It  was  this 
combination  of  almighty  power  with  loving-kindness 
that  melted  the  heart  of  the  ancient  Heljrew  and 
weaned  him  at  la-st  from  the  corrupting  influences  of 
the  nations  around  liim.  His  God  was  not  far  away, 
but  very  near  him — "about  his  path  and  about  his 
bed,  and  spying  out  all  his  ways."  He  "put"  the 
penitent's  "  tears  into  His  bottle,"  and  "  in  His  book 
were  all  his  members  written."  From  His  Presence 
there  was  no  escape.  "If  I  climb  up  into  heaven. 
Thou  art  there ;  if  I  go  down  to  hell,  Thou  art  there 
also.  If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning,  and  remain 
in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea;  even  there  shall 
Thy  hand  lead  me,  and  Thy  right  hand  shall  hold 
me."  And  this  all-embracing  Presence,  while  it 
precluded  all  possibility  of  escape  to  the  sinner,  was 
a  Presence  of  love  and  joy  and  protection  to  the 
righteous,  and  a  Presence,  moreover,  which  yearned 
for  human  affection. 

I  think  then  that  we  may  dismiss  from  our 
minds  once  for  all  the  idea  that  the  God  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  not  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a 


AXD   DOCTRINE   OF  THE    TRIXITY.  -ji 

Porsonal  Deity.  But  did  they  believe  in  Him  as  jl 
Trinity  of  Persons  ?  It  must  bo  admitted  that  tlie 
•  locti-ine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  phiinly  taught — is  not 
taught  at  all  in  fact,  except  T>y  implication  and 
casual  tokens — in  tlio  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
And  the  reason  is  plain.  The  world  was  overrun 
with  polytheism  and  all  the  idolatrous  pollutions  that 
were  inseparable  from  the  gods  many  and  lords  many 
tliat  mankind  worshipped.  There  was  therefore  a 
terrible  danger  that  a  premature  revelation  of  tlu^ 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  would  encourage  the  spread  of 
polytheism,  even  among  the  chosen  people  whom  God 
Avas  training  to  be  the  teachers  and  regenerators  of 
the  human  race.  Consequently  we  only  find  imperfect 
and  cursory  glimpses  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in 
the  Old  Testament ;  enough  to  indicate  the  truth,  but 
not  to  propagate  or  sanction  error.  Let  us  take  a  few 
examples. 

Most  of  you  arc  aware  that  one  of  the  names  by 
which  God  is  known  in  the  Old  Testament  is  the 
Hebrew  name  Elohim.  Now  Elohim  is  a  plural  noun  ; 
yet  in  the  Old  Testament  it  is  associated  with  singular 
verbs  and  adjectives,  thus  indicating  plurality  in  unity. 
Airain,  if  you  lor)k  at  the  account  of  creation  in  the 
ilrst  chapter  of  Genesis,  you  will  find  that  after  the 
cmerfrcnce  of  order  out  of  chaos,  there  is  a  deliberative 


72  DOCTRINE   OF  THE   TRINITY 

pause  when  the  frontier  is  reached  which  separates 
man  from  all  below  him.  "And  God  said,  Let  Us  make 
man  in  Our  image,  after  Our  likeness."  There,  again, 
you  have  the  Creator  represented  as  a  plurality  of 
Persons.  And  when  man  fell  through  disobedience, 
we  read :  "  And  the  Lord  God  said,  Behold,  the  man  is 
become  as  one  of  Us."  The  same  significant  phrase- 
ology is  used  in  describing  the  confusion  of  tongues 
at  Babel : — ''  Let  Us  go  down,  and  there  confound  their 
lanofuaofe."  It  would  take  too  lono;  to  trace  these  fore- 
gleams  of  the  truth  throughout  the  Old  Testament ; 
I  am  merely  giving  samples,  and  shall  conclude  with 
a  reference  to  the  sixth  chapter  of  Isaiah.  In  the 
first  place  you  find  a  triple  ascription,  by  the  Seraphim, 
of  holiness  to  the  Lord  of  Hosts;  after  which  the 
prophet  in  vision  "  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  saying, 
Whom  shall  /  send,  and  who  will  go  for  TJsV  A 
clearer  intimation  you  could  hardly  have  of  a  plurality 
of  Persons  in  the  Divine  unity. 

Another  fact  which  points  in  the  same  direction  is 
the  description  of  God  as  a  Being  of  overflowing  love 
— love  personified.  But  love  necessarily  implies  plu- 
rality— a  subject  and  an  object ;  and  in  a  perfect  Being 
love  implies  possession  of  its  object.  I  have  already 
shown  that  since  man  is  a  being  endowed  with  love, 
there  must  of  necessity  be  satisfaction  for  that  uni- 


IMPLIED,   BUT  NOT  REVEALED.  73 

vcrsal  craving,  because  even  the  most  thorougli-goin;; 
<.'Volutionists  agree  that  every  universal  instinct  im- 
plies a  corresponding  satisfaction;  and  experience 
proves  that  human  love  cannot  rest  in  any  object  short 
of  its  own  kind  at  least  The  same  argument  applies 
to  Divine  love.  God  being  love  eternally,  it  follows 
that  He  must  from  all  eternity  have  been  conscious  of 
i-eciprocal  love — in  other  words,  that  the  perfection  of 
the  Godhead  lies  in  a  unity  of  Essence  embracing  a 
plurality  of  Persons.  Thus  you  see  the  doctrine  of 
ii  Trinity  is  implied  in  that  attribute  of  God  which 
is  the  most  encouraging  and  most  consoling  to  man 
— the  attribute  of  love.  Love  implies  duality,  and 
in  its  fulness  trinity.  We  see  it  in  its  perfection  in 
tlie  family :  bridegroom  and  bride  united  in  a  bond 
indissoluble,  with  offspring  proceeding  from  both. 
This  is  no  mere  idle  fancy  ;  it  is  the  image  under 
which  the  Incarnate  Son  represents  His  sacramental 
relation  to  His  Church. 

I  remarked  a  while  ago  on  the  fact  that  tlie 
i^Q-eat  peril  of  polytheism  made  it  necessary  tliat 
tlie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  should  be  very  gradually 
icvcaled.  Did  it  ever  strike  you  how  wonderfully 
this  process  of  gradual  revelation  characterizes 
God's  discipline  of  man  adown  the  ages  in  secular 
as  well   iViJ   in  reliiiious  matters.      Look  at  the  vast 


74  ALL    TRUTHS  REVEALED   GRADUALLY. 

interval  which  separates  the  proclamation  of  the 
moral  law  from  the  modern  discoveries  of  physical 
science.  Thus  viewed,  what  a  different  meaning 
physical  science  must  have  for  those  who  suppose  it 
to  be  the  puzzling  out  of  a  riddle  of  which  no  human 
being  has  the  key — to  which,  indeed,  for  aught  we 
know,  there  may  be  no  key — and  for  those  who 
suppose  physical  science  to  be  the  knowledge  of  natural 
laws,  which  had  been  providentially  withheld  from  us 
till  the  far  more  important  knowledge  of  moral  laws 
had  been  thoroughly'  impressed  on  us.  If  the  revela- 
tions of  physical  science  had  preceded  those  of  moral 
law,  what  a  pandemonium  this  world  would  have 
become.  In  the  old  days  of  Paganism,  when  the 
chronic  relation  of  nation  with  nation,  tribe  with 
tribe,  almost  family  with  family,  was  a  relation  of 
antagonism  and  self-seeking,  the  knowledge  of  the 
hidden  forces  of  Nature,  which  man  now  enjoys,  would 
have  placed  an  instrument  in  man's  power  which 
w^ould  have  tempted  and  enabled  the  race  to  destroy 
itself  in  internecine  carnage.  Therefore  the  moral 
law  was  proclaimed  amidst  the  thunderings  and  light- 
nino-s  of  Sinai  ao'es  before  man  was  allowed  to  learn 
the  secret  of  the  terrific  forces  which  lay,  like  the  spirits 
of  Eastern  fable,  imprisoned  around  him.  Man's  con- 
science had  to  be  educated,  his  afiections  purified,  his 


ILLUSTRATIVE  EXAMPLES.  75 

(lomlnaiit  selfishness  to  be  subdued,  before  it  could  be 
safe  to  trust  hiin  with  the  knowledf]^(;  and  control 
of  Nature's  laboratory.  Surely  the  remarkable  fact 
that  a  law  like  the  Decalogue  far  preceded  a  sound 
knowledrre  of  the  laws  and  forces  of  Nature  shows 
that  Nature  is  under  the  government  of  a  moral 
Being  Who  reveals  her  forces  in  the  degree  in  which 
the  knowledge  of  them  would  be  safe  for  man. 
It  is  in  Christendom,  where  the  law  of  the  Cross 
on  the  whole  prevails,  that  man  has  been  uHowcmI 
the  knowledge  of  the  potent  forces  of  destruction 
which  modern  science  has  disclosed.  How  striking, 
too,  is  the  coincidence  of  the  discovery  of  the 
gold  fields  with  the  acceptance  of  free  trade  l)y  the 
greatest  commercial  empire  in  the  world.  Had  either 
of  these  events  preceded  the  other,  the  commerce 
<  )f  the  workl  -svould  have  been  disorganized,  and  there 
would  have  been  universal  confusion  and  ruin.  Not 
till  man  was  able,  so  to  speak,  to  bridge  over  the 
ocean,  and  to  furnish  a  ((uick  transit  for  the  exchange 
of  international  products,  was  the  precious  metal 
discovered  in  such  unexpected  abundance.  But  there 
would  have  been  a  Mut  of  m^V\  in  the  market  and 
chaos  on  every  Exchange  indess  the  free  trade  of 
Great  Britain  ha<l  opened  an  outlet  for  the  surplus. 
Is  not  this  a  wonderful  illustration  oi  the  providential 


76  TRINITY  OF  PERSONS 

government  of  the  world  by  a  Personal  Ruler  Who 
guides  alike  to  His  own  wise  ends  the  forces  and 
properties  of  Nature  and  the  wills  and  needs  of  men  ? 
So  much,  then,  by  way  of  illustration  of  the  gradual 
development  of  the  revelation  of  God's  Will  in  the 
sphere  both  of  man's  spiritual  and  secular  life. 

And  now  let  us  return  to  our  consideration  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  We  need  not  linger  over  the 
evidence  of  it  in  the  New  Testament.  I  shall  only 
cite  two  examples — the  Baptismal  formula  prescribed 
by  our  Lord,  and  the  Apostolic  benediction.  The 
significance  of  the  latter  is  obvious.  The  full  signifi- 
cance of  the  former  is  not  quite  so  apparent.  Our 
Lord  has  ordained  that  entrance  into  His  Church  shall 
be  by  baptism  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost ; "  the  name,  you  see,  not  names ; 
a  Trinity  in  unity,  and  a  coequality  in  the  Trinity. 
But  what  do  we  mean  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 
We  mean  that  there  is  in  the  Divine  Essence  a  Triad 
of  Persons,  each  Person  being  very  God,  and  all  so 
distinct  from  each  other  that  the  personal  pronoun 
may  be  applied  severally ;  yet  at  the  same  time  so 
"united,  each  to  each,  by  definite  correlations,  that 
together  they  constitute  One  Indivisible  God.  It  is 
necessary,  however,  to  have  a  clear  conception  of 
what  we  mean  by  the  word  "person"  in  this  con- 


AND    UNITY  OF  SUBSTANCE.  77 

ncctlon.  In  ordinary  language  it  is  an  ambiguous 
expression.  We  use  it  sometimes  for  an  individual 
as  contrasted  -with  a  class  or  multitude,  as  when  we 
speak  of  having  "personal  objection"  to  another. 
We  use  it  for  the  body  in  contrast  to  the  soul,  as 
when  we  speak  of  "  beauty  of  person."  It  is  not  in 
any  of  these  or  similar  senses  that  we  use  the  word 
when  we  speak  of  the  Persons  of  the  Blessed  Trinity. 
It  is  not  easy  to  explain  the  matter  to  those  who  are 
not  accustomed  to  the  technical  language  of  philosophy 
and  theology;  and  I  must,  therefore,  ask  you  to  be 
so  good  as  to  give  me  your  closest  attention.  The 
two  attributes  of  personality  are  self-consciousness 
and  self-determination.  By  self-consciousness  I  mean 
the  knowledge  which  enables  a  man  to  speak  of 
himself  as  "  I  "  and  of  others  as  "  thou  "  and  "  he  "  or 
"  she  ; "  the  knowledge  by  which  he  differentiates,  by 
which  he  separates  himself  clearly  from  everything 
which  is  outside  of  him,  and  which  he  knows  is  not 
himself.  Animals  have  no  self -consciousness.  They  do 
not  think  of  themselves  and  reason  about  themselves 
as  personalities — separate,  self-perceiving,  distinct 
beings  with  a  past,  a  present,  and  a  future.  They 
live  in  the  present  moment.  Eaeli  minute  of  time  as 
it  passes  is  their  all  in  all.  They  look  neither  behind 
nor  before.     They  arc  bounded  by  tlie  range  of  their 


78  THE  MUTUAL  RELATIONS 

bodily  appetites,  and  have  no  thought  beyond  it. 
But  man  is  a  self-conscious  being,  contemplating 
himself  and  contemplating  the  world  outside  of  him- 
self. He  has  also  a  self-determining  power.  He 
originates.  He  creates.  He  resolves  and  chooses. 
He  foresees  in  a  measure.  He  puts  an  end  before 
himself  to  strive  for.  He  deliberates,  and  he  adapts 
his  means  to  his  end.  Animals,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  no  self-determining  power,  no  independence,  no 
originating  faculty.  They  are  enclosed  within  the 
narrow  circle  of  their  appetites,  and  can  never  of 
themselves  rise  superior  to  their  bodily  environment. 
So  much  then  as  to  the  meaning  of  personality,  as  we 
use  it  in  the  creed.  But  you  must  remember  that 
it  is  only  an  approximation  to  the  truth,  not  an 
exhaustive  explanation.  Personality,  as  we  know  it, 
implies  limitations ;  and  God  is  infinite.  Human  lan- 
guage cannot  compass  divine  things.  The  ideas  of 
eternity  are  too  vast  and  mysterious  to  be  adequately 
envisag^ed  in  the  forms  of  time. 

But  in  what  relation  do  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity 
stand  towards  each  other  ?  They  are  described  as 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  In  the  language  of 
theology,  the  Father  is  "  the  fountain  of  Deity."  He 
has  thus  priority  over  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
yet  a  priority  not  of  nature  or  of  time,  but  only  of 


OF   THE  DIVIXE  FERSOXS.  79 

dignity  and  order.  Morcuvcr,  \vliun  we  speak  of  the 
Son  wc  use  the  expression  in  three  senses.  First,  He 
is  the  Father's  only-begotten  Son,  His  Son  by  eternal 
generation  as  tlie  indwelling  Reason  in  the  bosom  ot* 
the  Father.  You  remember  that  St.  John  in  his 
Gospel  speaks  of  Him  as  the  Word.  The  (lospel  was 
written  in  Greek,  and  in  Greek  reason  and  speecli 
are  expressed  by  one  word — logos.  Reason  is  speed i 
in  thouglit ;  speecli  is  reason  in  utterance.  The  Son 
was  thus  from  all  eternity  in  the  bosom  of  tlio 
Father  as  the  Logos  unexpressed,  the  Idea  inarticu- 
late, a  Personality  in  no  relation  to  anything  ex- 
ternal to  and  separate  from  tlie  Divine  Essence.  In 
the  second  place,  we  tliink  of  Him  as  the  Creator 
«)f  the  universe,  issuing  from  the  bosom  of  the 
Fatlier  as  the  internal  thouglit  issues  in  speecli. 
This  is  the  second  aspect  of  His  Sonship.  He,  the 
Infinite  Reason,  comes  into  relationship  with  the 
Unite  creation.  He  is  thus,  in  the  profound  language 
of  St.  Paul,  "the  first-born  of  all  creation."  The 
Reastai  innnanent  has  ])ecome  the  Reason  issuing 
forth  int(j  Hk^  sphere  of  created  life.  "By  the  Word 
of  the  Lord  W('i-(i  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host 
of  them  by  the  breath" — that  is,  the  Spirit — "of  His 
mouth."  In  that  passage  the  Word  docs  not  mean 
■speech,  but  the  Word  as  used  in  the  Gospel  of  St 


80  THE  SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST, 

John,  namely  the  Son,  creating  the  world  and  reducing- 
it  to  order  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  the 
Lord  and  Giver  of  life."  In  the  third  place,  the 
Eternal  Word  became  a  Son  in  another  sense  when 
He  became  Incarnate,  taking  manhood  into  insepa- 
rable union  with  His  Divine  Person.  He  is  thus, 
remember.  Son  in  a  threefold  sense;  the  first,  by 
eternal  generation ;  the  second,  metaphorically  as  "  the 
iirst-born  of  all  creation ; "  the  third,  as  "  tlie  Son  of 
Man."  There  never  was  a  time  when  God  the  Father 
was  not  Father ;  consequently  there  never  was  a 
time  when  God  the  Son  was  not  Son.  Here  earthly 
analogies  are  apt  to  mislead  us.  With  us  a  son  comes 
after  his  father  in  order  of  time  ;  and  yet  the  child  is 
in  a  sense  latent  in  the  father  before  he  issues  into 
visible  being.  But  let  us  take  the  illustration  of  the 
Nicene  Creed.  The  Son  is  "  Light  from  Light."  The 
light  of  the  sun  is  coeval  with  its  source.  The  heat 
of  flame  is  inseparable  from  the  flame.  You  must 
therefore  try  to  get  these  three  terms  firmly  fixed  in 
your  minds.  Christ  is  "the  only-begotten  Son  of 
God  "—that  applies  to  His  eternal  generation.  He  is 
the  "first-born  of  all  creation"— that  applies  to  Him  as 
the  Word  emerging  to  create  the  universe.  He  "  was 
Incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary  "  — 
that  applies  to  Him  as  the  Son  of  Man.     The  term 


THE  SABRLUAN  TRINITY.  8  c 

"  first-born  "  is  applied  to  Christ  six  times  in  the  Nuw 
Testaniont ;  and  in  every  case  it  means  His  relation 
to  the  miiverse  either  as  its  Creator  or  its  lledeemer ; 
never  His  relation  to  the  Father  as  the  only-begotten 
Son.  The  passages  are  Rom.  viii.  29 ;  Rev.  iii.  14 
and  i.  5;  Col.  i.  15  and  i.  IS;  Heb.  i.  G.  Finally, 
remember  that  the  Godhead  consists  of  three  Persons, 
not  three  phases  or  characters  of  one  Person.  That 
was  the  heresy  of  Sabellius,  who  maintained  tluit 
the  internal  correlations  of  the  Trinity  were  simply 
successive  and  temporary  phases  of  character,  God 
appearing  at  one  time  as  Father,  another  time  as 
Son,  another  as  Holy  Spirit.  In  opposition  to  that 
heresy  the  Church  teaches  that  the  Trinity  in  Unity 
consists  of  three  distinct  Persons,  Whose  relations  to 
each  other  are  not  successive  and  temporal,  but 
coincident  and  eternal. 


"And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Only- 
begotten  Son  of  God,  .  .  .  Who  for  us 
Men,  and  for  our  Salvation  came  down 
FROM  Heaven." 

MAN  DEMANDS  A   MEDIATOR, 

The  method  which  I  have  adopted  in  explaining  the 
Nicene  Creed  has  been  that  of  showing  that  it  meets 
the  wants  of  human  nature ;  I  mean,  of  course,  the 
spiritual  part  of  man.  The  lower  animals  are  satisfied 
when  their  bodily  wants  are  supplied.  They  have  no 
curiosity  about  themselves;  no  consciousness  of  the 
past,  no  thought  of  the  future ;  they  live,  as  far  as  we 
can  judge,  entirely  in  the  present.  But  man  needs 
more  than  the  satisfaction  of  his  bodily  appetites  ;  he 
is  conscious  of  spiritual  needs  which  crave  for  appro- 
priate nourishment  as  truly  as  the  hunger  and  thirst 
of  the  body  crave  for  food  and  drink.  He  feels  that 
he  has  a  history  extending  far  back  into  the  past  and 
stretching  forward  into  the  future ;  that  his  present 
life  is  somehow  mysteriously  influenced  by  the  past 


AND  A   FUTURE   LII-E.  83 

of  his  race,  and  tliat  his  future  life  will  certainly  he 
influenced  hy  his  present  life.  Whence  came  we? 
Wliy  are  we  here  ?  Whither  are  we  going  ?  What 
mean  these  instincts,  yearnings,  premonitions,  outside 
of  bodily  wants,  of  which  we  are  all  conscious?  These 
are  questions  which  the  heart  of  man  has  been  askini; 
itself  in  all  ajres,  and  which  it  cannot  cease  to  ask  till 
it  has  ceased  to  beat.  It  cannot  rest  in  Agnosticism  ; 
it  cannot  acquiesce  in  ignorance.  Man  sees  that  there 
is  a  difference  in  kind  between  himself  and  all  else  in 
the  w^orld  around  him.  He  feels  that  his  short  life 
here  is  not  the  whole  of  him  ;  that  there  is  a  spiritual 
world  with  which  he  has  relations,  and  into  which 
death  will  introduce  him.  The  lower  animals  are 
adapted  to  their  abode  when  their  bodies  are  de- 
veloped ;  there  is  no  indication  of  higher  development 
for  them.  Look  at  the  bird  in  the  Qgg\  it  is  not 
adapted  to  its  abode ;  you  see  that  it  has  rudimentary 
organs  pointing  to  another  state  of  being,  of  which  it 
is  not  yet  in  possession.  If  you  examine  the  chrysalis 
of  the  stag-beetle,  you  will  see  that  the  case  is  much 
larger  than  the  insect  apparently  needs.  But  when 
the  beetle  has  emerged  from  its  chrysalis  you  hn<l 
the  reason  of  what  puzzled  you ;  the  temporary  tene- 
ment had  to  be  made  larger  than  the  needs  of  its 
tenant  to  allow  room  for  the  new  form  which  it  wab 


84  GOETHE'S  COMPLAINT, 

about  to  take ;  the  future  horns  of  the  beetle  had  to 
be  provided  for.     Man  is  not  adapted  to  his  present 
condition  :  the  case  is  not  large  enough  for  its  tenant. 
There  is  nothing  here  which  entirely  satisfies  him ; 
he  has  aspirations,  feelings,  and  longings  which  far 
transcend  the  boundary  of  his  mortal  life.     The  most 
highly   favoured   of    mankind   have  confessed    this. 
Goethe  was  one  of  the  most  highly  favoured  men, 
not  only  of  his  own  time,  but  of  all  times,  a  man  of 
rare  personal  beauty,  transcendent  genius,  great  learn- 
ing, admired  and  courted  by  men  and  women,  with 
no  pangs  of  sorrow,  or  suffering,  or  disappointment  to 
embitter  his  life.     If  ever  there  was  a  human  being 
who  might  look  back  upon  his  life  with  satisfaction 
you  would  say  that  Goethe  could,  if  it  be  true  that 
man  is  adapted  to  his  life  on  earth  as  the  goal  of  his 
career.     Yet  listen  to  what  Goethe  said,  at  the  close 
of  what  seemed  a  highly  prosperous  life  : — "  I  have 
ever  been  esteemed  one  of  fortune's  favourites;  nor 
can  I  complain  of  the  course  my  life  has  taken.     Yet 
surely  there  has  been  nothing  but  toil  and  care;  and  in 
my  seventy-seventh  year  I  may  say  that  I  have  never 
had  four  weeks  of  genuine  pleasure.     The  stone  was 
ever  to  be  rolled  up  anew.     We  may  lean  for  a  little 
while  upon  our  friends,  but  in  the  end  man  is  always 
driven  back  upon  himself.     And  it  seems  to  me  as  if 


ins  CONDUCT  TO    WOMEN.  85 

God  had  placed  Himself  in  such  relation  to  man  as  not 
always  to  respond  to  his  reverence  and  trust  and  love 
— at  lejist  in  his  hour  of  greatest  need."  But  here  the 
great  poet  tries  to  lay  upon  God  the  blame  which  in 
fact  belonged  to  himself  alone.  For  Goethe  tells  us 
in  another  place  that,  having  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  indulgence  of  sympathy  and  affection  was 
prejudicial  to  the  development  of  his  genius,  he  de- 
liberately set  himself  to  suppress  that  part  of  his 
nature.  And  certainly  liis  heartless  treatment  of 
women,  to  quote  nothing  else,  goes  far  to  prove  that 
he  succeeded  in  sacrificing  the  moral  part  of  his 
nature  to  the  intellectual  and  a3sthetic.  He  made 
himself  his  own  idol,  and  ended  in  having  no  "  re- 
verence and  trust  and  lov(^ "  to  which  God  could 
"respond."  An  awful  example  truly  of  what  comes 
of  adapting  one's  life  to  this  world  as  one's  homo.^ 

*  On  reading  this  passage  in  the  published  reports  of  these  lectures, 
a  gentleman  wrote  to  me  from  Weimar,  very  courteously,  to  question 
the  accuracy  of  my  i-epreseutation  of  Goethe's  conduct  to  women, 
and  ho  referred,  inter  alia,  to  Goethe's  "  affection  for  Grctchen"  as 
"a  trao  overflowing  of  love."  I  am  sorry  to  bo  obliged  to  retain  my 
opinion.  Tho  Grctchen  episode  occurred  too  early  in  Goethe's  life 
to  bo  relevant,  and  his  subsequent  love-affairs  were  used  by  him 
deliberately  as  materials  in  aid  of  his  own  progress  to  intellectual 
and  ajsthetic  self-development.  That  ho  crushed  in  this  process 
tho  hearts  which  he  had  set  himself  to  win  hardly  seemed  to  havo 
caused  him  any  serious  compunction.  I  am  glad  to  fortify  my  owji 
opinion  by  a  quotation  from  Mr.  R.  II.  Ilntton's  most  masterly  essay 


86  AN  ALMIGHTY  FATHER 

Now  the  creed,  in  so  far  as  I  have  explained  it, 
meets  these  needs  of  human  nature.  But  it  does  not 
meet  them  complete!}^.  It  tells  us  that  this  world, 
including  man,  came  from  the  hands  of  an  Almighty 
Creator,  Governor,  and  Father,  with  Whom  man  is 
able  to  hold  some  kind  of  intercourse.     If  the  creed 

on  Goethe  and  his  Influences.  Mr.  Hutton  (Essays,  Theological  and 
Literary,  vol.  ii.  pp.  41,  42)  quotes  the  following  sentence  from  a 
letter  written  by  Goethe  to  Lavater :  "  The  desire  to  raise  the 
pyramid  of  my  existence — the  base  of  which  is  already  laid — as  high 
as  possible  in  the  air  absorbs  every  other  desire,  and  scarcely  ever 
quits  me,"  and  observes  that  "it  soon  became  his  habit  to  cultivate 
disinterested  affection  only  as  a  subordinate  element,  needful  to  the 
harmony  of  a  universally  experienced  nature.  To  have  loved  the 
goodness  of  either  God  or  man  more  devotedly  than  he  loved  its  reflex 
image  in  his  own  character  would  have  done  him  more  good  than 
all  the  sickly  pottering  with  the  'pyramid  of  his  existence'  with  which 
he  was  so  much  occupied.  It  would  be  absurd  to  say  all  this  about 
Goethe's  youthful  conduct  to  Frederika,  were  it  not  the  type  of  what 
Avas  always  happening  in  his  after-life,  when  he  knew  by  experience 
that  he  very  much  preferred  to  be  passively  hampered  by  a  wounded 
heart  to  being  actively  hampered  by  an  affectionate  wife.  The 
essence  of  these  tedious  tortures  was  almost  always  the  same.  He 
wished  for  love  vrith  limited  liability;  he  did  not  wish  to  devote 
himself  to  any  one  except  himself."  In  short,  he  cultivated  and 
enjoyed  the  love  of  women  as  an  sssthetic  luxury,  and  he  experi- 
mented on  it  with  the  most  heartless  selfishness.  I  am  indebted  to 
an  eminent  public  man  for  the  suggestion  that  the  idea  of  duty 
hardly  existed  in  the  character  of  Goethe ;  so  that  it  was  with  a  true 
instinct  that  his  connti'ymen  selected  for  his  monument  at  Frankfort 
the  following  words  from  his  own  General  Beichte :  ^'Im  ganzen 
Guten,  Schonen,  Resolut  zii,  Lehen."  The  "  good  "  here,  as  is  evident 
from  the  context,  means  the  good  of  intellect,  and  has  nothing 
to  do  with  moral  duty. 


NOT  ENOUGH  FOR  MANS  NEEDS.  87 

had  told  us  notliing  beyond  tliis,  it  would  have  told 
us  a  truth  of  unspeakable  preciousness  and  impor- 
tance;   but  man  feels  that  he  needs  more.      If   the 
creed  had  stopped  there,  God  would  Imve  remained 
far   away,  at   a   lofty   elevation   and   at   an   infinite 
distance   from   man,  far  away  not  in  space   but   in 
nature.     The  gulf  which  separates  the  Creator  from 
the  creature  is  infinite,  and,  on  the  part  of  man  un- 
aided and  alone,  impassable.      Therefore  in  all  ages 
men  have  yearned  for  a  mediator,  for  some  being  who 
could  bridge  the  chasm  that  divides  the  Creator  from 
the  creature,  and  thus  cnal»le  man  to  hold  intercourse 
with   his   Maker.     Let   us   briefly  consider   some   of 
these  instinctive  desires  of  human  nature  for  a  me- 
diator and  for  "  a  city  which  hath  foundations  "  some- 
where beyond  the  shifting  sands  of  time,  before  we 
come  to  the  answer  which  the  creed  makes  to  them. 
But  it  may  be  useful,  in  the  first  place,  to  see  how 
far  these  instincts  can  be  quoted  as  evidence  in  the 
argument.     And  here  I  may  appeal  confidently  to  the 
teachers   of    evolution   themselves.      For   what   does 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  teach  ?     It  tells  us  that  any 
instinct  which  is  generic,  that  is  to  sa}',  whicli  is  co- 
extensive  with  the   race,   must  have    its  appropriate 
satisfaction.       Hunger    implies   food ;    thirst    implies 
drink ;  the  eye  implies  sight ;  the  ear  implies  waves 


88  INSTINCT  OF  PRAYER   UNIVERSAL, 

of  sound ;  the  pinions  of  the  bird  imply  an  atmo- 
sphere, by  beating  of  which  with  its  wings  the  bird 
can  raise  itself  aloft  and  float  through  space;  the 
channels  which  pass  through  the  trunk  of  the  tree 
imply  that  the  tree  derives  its  moisture  by  suction 
from  the  ground;  the  web  which  the  spider  makes 
implies  that  the  spider  is  intended  to  obtain  its  food 
by  catching  insects  in  that  web.  And  so  with  the 
instincts  of  bees,  and  ants,  and  other  creatures ;  they 
all  prove,  and  are  admitted  to  prove  by  the  teachers 
of  physical  science,  that  there  is  something  in  Nature 
to  correspond  with  them  all.  Man  also  has  a  number 
of  instincts  outside  the  requirements  of  his  body,  and 
by  parity  of  reasoning  they  too  must  have  their  appro- 
priate satisfaction.  But  they  find  no  satisfaction  in 
man's  brief  and  chequered  life  on  earth,  if  that  life 
be  all  and  there  is  no  hereafter. 

Let  us  consider  some  of  these  universal  instincts;  and 
let  us  begin  with  that  of  prayer.  That  is  an  instinct 
coextensive  with  the  race.  There  is  no  tribe  of  men 
so  low  in  the  scale  of  being  as  to  be  absolutely  desti- 
tute of  the  instinct  of  prayer.  There  is  no  race  of 
man  so  degraded  that  in  moments  of  anguish  does  not 
lift  up  beseeching  eyes  and  imploring  hands  towards  a 
Being  able  to  hear  and  answer  prayer.  Now  we  know 
that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause.    Is  the  polarity  of 


PRAYER   IMPLIES  ATTK ACTIVE  EORCE.  89 

the  nui<]jnct  without  a  cause  ?  Why  docs  the  mafpiet 
always  point  in  one  direction  ?  Phice  a  niaf^net  in  a 
pure  void,  in  absolutely  empty  space,  and  the  magnet 
will  remain  motionless.  A  compass  will  ncjt  move 
in  an  absolute  void.  Why  ?  Because  there  is  no- 
thing there  to  attract  it.  The  invariable  movement, 
therefore,  of  the  magnetic  needle  of  the  compass 
towards  a  certain  point  in  space  is  proof  positive  that 
there  is  some  object  of  attraction  in  that  direction;  if 
there  were  not,  the  compass  would  not  always  point 
that  w^ay.  Now,  if  this  life  were  all ;  if  beyond  this 
visible  screen  there  was  no  Being  to  sustain,  sup- 
port, and  comfort  man,  nothing  but  empty  space,  no 
voice  nor  any  to  answer — is  it  conceivable  that  men 
should  in  all  ao^es  and  conditions  have  turned  in 
moments  of  need  towards  an  illusion ;  that  they 
should  have  obeyed  the  spell  of  an  irresistible  attrac- 
tion when  in  fact  there  was  nothing  to  attract  them  ? 
As  well  believe  that  there  is  nothing  in  space  to 
attract  the  mariner's  compass  as  that  there  is  no  God 
in  the  universe  to  attract  the  mariner's  prayer.  And 
the  votaries  of  science  themselves  are  of  all  others 
tlic  men  who  ouirht  to  insist  on  this,  who  ou<]:ht  to 
repudiate  the  libel  on  the  veracity  of  Nature  implied 
in  the  belief  that  there  is  no  God  Wh(3  hears  and 
answers  prayer.     Are  we  to  conclude  that  Nature  is  a 


90  SACRIFICE  A    UNIVERSAL   CUSTOM. 

true  prophetess  up  to  man,  and  that  when  he  appears 
upon  the  scene  she  becomes  a  cruel  syren,  torment- 
ing and  mocking  him  with  instincts  and  longings  to 
which  there  are  no  corresponding  objects  ?  Plants 
and  insects,  birds  and  quadrupeds,  do  not  seek  in 
vain  for  the  fulfilment  of  their  desires.  "  Thou  fillest 
all  things  living  with  plenteousness  "  is  true  of  them 
all.  Is  man,  the  crown  and  paragon  of  Nature,  the 
only  one  of  her  offspring  who  is  to  be  sent  empty 
away  ?  They  are  not  the  truest  and  most  reverent 
students  of  Nature  who  say  so. 

Another  of  the  fundamental  instincts  of  humanity 
is  the  practice  of  sacrifice,  which  includes  two  ideas : 
(1)  man's  confession  of  dependence  on  God  for  all 
ttiat  makes  life  possible  and  enjoyable;  (2)  his  ac- 
knowledgment of  guilt,  involving  forfeiture  of  life. 
In  the  former  case  the  sacrifice  is  made  from  the 
stores  with  which  human  life  is  supported  and  em- 
bellished— mineral,  vegetable,  animal.  In  the  latter 
we  have  the  idea  of  expiation — life  sacrificed  for  Kfe, 
the  innocent  for  the  guilty.  In  Egypt  the  sacrificing 
priest  pronounced  the  following  imprecation  on  the  head 
of  the  victim : — "  If  any  evil  is  about  to  befall  either 
those  that  now  sacrifice,  or  Egypt  in  general,  may  it 
be  averted  on  this  head."  The  sacrificer's  guilt  and  the 
punishment  due  to  it  were  believed  to  be  thus  trans- 


HUMAN  SACRIFICES.  91 

f erred  to  the  head  of  the  victim.  Heads  of  animals 
were  accordingly  forbidden  food  in  Egypt.^  Associated 
witli  this  idea  of  expiation  by  tlie  innnohition  of  an 
innocent  life  we  find  also  the  human  craving  for 
purity,  for  the  washing  away  of  moral  defilement. 
This  feeling  was  vividly  symbolized  by  the  Roman 
custom  of  sacrificing  a  bull  and  drenching  the  saciificer 
in  its  warm  blood,  which  was  rained  down  upon  him 
through  a  perforated  platform  covering  the  pit  in 
wliich  he  received  this  baptism  of  blood — a  baptism 
to  which  the  Emperor  Julian  is  said  to  have  submitted 
in  his  vain  endeavour  to  extirpate  Christianit}^  and 
restore  Paganism.  But  men  instinctively  felt  it  to  be 
"impossible  that  the  blood  of  Ijulls  and  goats  should 
take  away  sins."  The  human  conscience  suggested 
the  imperative  need  of  a  more  costly  sacrifice.  The 
distressed  King  of  Moab  spoke  the  fears  of  guilty 
man  when  he  asked,  in  an  ascending  scale  of  terror : 
"Wherewithal  shall  I  come  before  the  Lord,  and  bow 
myself  before  the  high  God  ?  shall  I  come  before 
Him  with  burnt-off*erings,  with  calves  of  a  year  old  >* 
Will  the  Lord  be  pleased  with  thousands  of  rams,  or 
with  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil  ?  shall  I  give  my 
iirst-born  for  my  transgi'ession,  the  fruit  of  my  body 
for  the   sin   of  my  soul  ?"-     Humnu   sacrifices  came 

*  Ucrod.  ii.  39.  '  Micah  vi.  G-7. 


92  WHAT  SACRIFICE  IMPLIES. 

thus  to  be  offered  by  the  leading  nations  of  antiquity — 
by  the  Phoenicians,  Arabians,  Greeks,  Romans,  Goths,  as 
well  as  by  the  Mexicans.  They  were  known  in  bright 
philosophic  Athens  in  the  noonday  of  her  glory,  and 
had  not  become  obsolete  in  Rome  for  some  time  after 
the  Christian  era.  Carthage,  in  the  height  of  her 
commercial  splendour,  sacrificed  children  in  crowds, 
and  drowned  their  screams  by  the  sound  of  music  as 
they  were  flung  into  the  flames.  Perhaps  the  most 
striking  evidence  of  man's  yearning  for  expiatory 
cleansing  is  furnished  by  the  extraordinary  pre- 
valence of  the  Avorship  of  Isis  at  the  dawn  of  the 
Christian  dispensation.  The  religions  of  Greece  and 
Rome  had  lost  their  hold  on  those  nations,  mainly 
from  their  failure  to  meet  man's  craving  for  peace 
of  mind  and  holiness  of  life.  The  worship  of  Isis 
offered  what  classic  Paganism,  on  the  whole,  declined 
— expiatory  cleansing  of  man's  guilty  conscience. 
Hence  its  rapid  triumphs  in  Italy,  Spain,  Germany, 
France,  and  even  in  Britain,  till  Christianity  dis- 
possessed it  by  actually  supplying  what  the  ritual  of 
Isis  had  only  promised. 

Thus  we  see  that  deep  down  in  the  heart  of  man 
there  lies  the  ineradicable  instinct  of  guilt  and  retri- 
bution with  the  consequent  need  of  expiation  and 
cleansing.     Man  has  an  intuitive  sense  of  right  and 


jV.lv S   THIRST  FOR    KiWOWfJlDGE.  93 

wrono",  aiul  an  internal  monitor  to  w;ini  him  when 
lie  is  tempted  to  prefer  wrong  to  riglit.  Nor  is  it  of 
any  avail  to  retort  the  various  and  sometimes  contra- 
dictory notions  of  right  and  wrong  which  different 
nations  and  tribes  and  individuals  may  have.  The 
answer  is  that  all  men  agree  in  the  fact  tliat  there 
are  such  tilings  as  right  and  wrong,  though  they  may 
go  astray  in  particulars.  All  accept  the  major  pro- 
position, that  it  is  wrong  to  do  certain  things  and 
right  to  do  others,  and  only  differ  as  to  the  minor — 
namely,  what  tilings  arc  right  and  ^v]lat  wrong.  The 
proverbial  literature  of  nations  is  the  concentrated 
essence  of  their  experience  and  reflection,  and  every 
nation  that  has  a  literature  has  embodied  its  ex- 
perience in  some  adage  like  our  own  "  Murder  will 
out " — meaning  not  so  much  tliat  Nemesis  will 
eventually  overtake  the  criminal,  as  that  an  uneasy 
conscience  will,  as  a  rule,  force  him  sooner  or  later 
to  "  make  a  clean  breast  of  it."  Shakespeare  has 
given  tragic  expression  to  this  instinct  in  the  sleep- 
walking scene  in  "  Macbeth,"  especially  in  the  pathetic 
wail  of  the  guilty  Queen,  that  "all  the  perfumes  of 
Arabia  will  not  sweeten  this  little  hand  ;"  the  truth, 
of  course,  being  that  the  indelible  stain  was  not  on  the 
hand,  but  on  the  self-accusing  conscience. 

Another  of  the  universal  instincts  of  Immanity  is 


94  DIFFERENCE   OF  LOVE   OF  BEAUTY 

man's  irrepressible  thirst  for  knowledge — knowledge 
for  its  own  sake.  This  love  of  knowledge  on  the  part 
of  man  has  been  at  the  root  of  nearly  all  great  dis- 
coveries and  many  noble  achievements.  What  is  it 
that  has  sent  men  in  all  ages  across  forbidding  deserts 
and  over  inhospitable  seas,  or  made  them  to  pass  toil- 
some days  and  sleepless  nights  in  search  of  truth  ? 
Not  the  sordid  love  of  money,  nor  even  the  nobler 
love  of  fame,  but  an  unquenchable  thirst  for  know- 
ledge— the  insatiable  curiosity  which  differentiates 
man  from  the  brute;  that  reluctance,  in  short,  to 
accept  the  despairing  conclusion  of  Agnosticism — 
man's  individual  annihilation  at  death — as  the  final 
portion  of  our  race.  But  there  is  no  satisfaction  for 
that  consuming  love  of  knowledge  here.  The  more 
man  learns,  the  vaster  looms  in  the  distant  haze  the 
outlines  of  the  fields  of  truth  which  still  lie  undis- 
covered before  him.  And  then  one  day  he  dies, 
perhaps  suddenly  while  still  in  quest  of  knowledge 
and  but  a  very  short  way  on  his  journey.  If  Nature 
be  a  true  prophetess  there  is  a  future  life  for  man  in 
which  his  thirst  for  knowledge  will  be  satisfied. 

And  what  are  we  to  say  of  man's  love  of  beauty  ? 
That,  too,  is  a  dividing  gulf  between  man  and  the 
lower  animals.  They  appear  to  have  no  sense  of  beauty 
for  its  own  sake.     I  say  "  for  its  own  sake,"  because 


ly  MA.V  AND  ANIMALS.  95 

there  arc  undoubtedly  some  Lirds  and  other  animals 
wliicli  oxhihit  a  certain  sense  and  love  of  beauty. 
But  it'  you  inspect  it  closely  you  will  find  that  it  is 
only  an  unreasoning  instinct,  given  for  a  special 
purpose,  and  never  passing  beyond  that  purpose. 
It  is  an  instinct  specific  in  its  scope,  utilitarian  in  its 
aim,  and  temporary  in  its  purpose.  What  animal  has 
ever  shown  any  sign  of  admiration  of  beautiful 
scenery,  or  beauty  of  any  kind  apart  from  one  specific 
animal  pui-pose  ?  But  man  has  a  love  of  beauty  for 
the  mere  sake  of  beauty.  What  is  beauty  ?  Where 
does  it  reside  ?  In  the  perceived  object  or  in  the 
perceiving  mind  ?  A  sunset  makes  precisely  the  same 
impression  on  the  retina  of  the  brute  as  on  the  human 
eye.  But  how  different  the  result.  When  the  image 
touches  the  eye  of  man  it  passes  quickly  through  the 
optic  nerve  to  the  brain,  and  through  the  brain  to 
the  soul,  and  immediately  a  picture  is  presented  to 
the  mind  which  gives  exquisite  delight.  Does  not  this 
clearly  show,  among  other  things,  that  this  world  is 
a  sort  of  message  to  man  from  an  intelligent  Creator 
— a  parable  to  teach  him  that  the  evanescent  beauty 
of  earth  beckons  him  to  a  world  where  beauty  does 
not  fade.  The  existence  in  Nature  of  something  that 
excites  the  sensation  of  beauty  in  man,  and  In  liim 
only,  is  surely  a  proof  that  Nature  is  the  product  oi 


96  SORROW  FOR    THE  DEAD. 

an  intelligent  mind  addressing  itself  to  an  intelligence 
that  can  understand  the  appeal  and  can  recognize  in 
the  broken  reflections  of  earthly  beauty  the  love  of 
One  Who  is  the  uncreated  source  of  beauty.  Man's 
love  of  beauty,  however,  finds  no  satisfaction  here 
The  beauty  of  earth  blooms  but  to  decay. 

Sorrow  for  the  dead  is  also  an  instinct  which  no 
animal  shares  with  man.  Animals  will  fight  and 
even  die  in  defence  of  their  young,  but  only  while 
the  offspring  is  growing  and  needs  protection.  When 
it  has  reached  maturity  it  is  no  more  to  its  parent 
than  any  other  of  its  tribe,  and  when  it  dies  the 
parent  makes  no  lamentation  over  it.  Not  so 
man.  When  he  has  lost  his  beloved  he  does  not 
resign  himself  to  the  parting  as  if  it  were  eternal. 
A  secret  instinct  whispers  to  him  that  it  is  but 
temporary  ;  and  his  unquenchable  hope  finds  expres- 
sion in  visible  symbols.  He  raises  monuments  over 
the  place  where  he  has  laid  his  dead,  and  places  im- 
mortelles— unfading  flowers — over  their  graves  ;  for 
he  believes  that  the  treasure  he  has  lost  is  garnered 
up  elsewhere  and  that  he  will  find  it  again.  Man- 
kind is  thus  typified  by  Rachel  weeping  for  her 
children  and  refusing  to  be  comforted  because  they 
are  not.  The  refusal  to  be  comforted  is  a  protest 
against  annihilation;   it   is   the    unreasoned  wail  of 


MAX  NEEDS  A   MEDIATOR,  97 

an  un.lyini;  instinct  that  the  niis.sin*,^  cliiMrcn  \\\\\ 
one  day  be  restored.  Man  soon  learns  to  reconcile 
himself  to  the  inevitable;  but  huiuanity  luis  never 
acquiesced  in  death  as  its  eternal  doom. 

Of  all  the  spiritual  instincts  of  man,  however, 
perhaps  the  strongest  is  that  which  cries  aloud  for  a 
Mediator.  Man  feels  that  the  world  morally  is  all 
awry;  wrong  unpunished  and  triumphant;  right  and 
innocence  outraged  and  unavenged.  We  have  a 
striking  instance  of  this  in  the  Book  of  Job.  Some 
of  Job's  friends  came  to  comfort  him,  and  they  ur^-ed 
him  to  confess  that  his  calamity  was  a  judo-ment 
u^jon  him  for  some  known  or  forgotten  sin.  They 
plied  him  with  their  platitudes  and  conventional 
morality.  "  Remember,  I  pray  thee,"  said  one  of  them, 
"  who  ever  perished,  being  innocent  ?  or  where  were 
the  righteous  cutoff?"  Job  repels  their  accusations 
and  rejects  their  reasoning  with  indignation,  and  he 
appeals  to  the  experience  of  mankind.  If  his  friends 
were  right,  let  them  tell  him,  "Wherefore  do  the 
wicked  live,  become  old,  yea,  are  mighty  in  power  ? 
Tlieir  seed  is  established  in  their  siglit  with  them, 
and  their  offspring  before  their  eyes.  Their  houses 
are  safe  from  fear,  neither  is  the  rod  of  GckI  upon 
them.  Their  bull  gendereth,  and  faileth  not ;  their 
cow  calveth,  and  casteth  not  her  calf.      They  send 

H 


98  JOB'S  CRY  FOR  A   DAYSMAN. 

forth  their  little  ones  like  a  flock,  and  their  children 
dance.  They  take  the  timbrel  and  harp,  and  rejoice 
at  the  sound  of  the  organ."  Job  did  not  deny  that  he 
was  a  sinner  or  that  sin  merited  punishment.  But  he 
did  deny  that  he  was  a  sinner  above  all  men,  and  he 
rejected  with  scorn  the  comfortable  doctrine  of  those 
who  were  not  afflicted,  namely,  that  prosperity  meant 
innocence  and  suffering  guilt.  But  how  could  he  clear 
himself?  It  seemed  to  him  that  he  had  no  chance. 
Nothing  should  destroy  his  trust  in  God;  "Though 
He  slay  me,  yet  will  I  trust  in  Him."  But  how  could 
he  plead  with  a  Being  in  Whose  eyes  the  very  heavens 
were  not  pure,  and  Who  could  charge  even  His  angels 
with  folly  ?  Job  throws  his  argument  into  the  form 
of  a  judicial  trial,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  on  what 
unequal  terms  the  controversy  must  be  conducted. 
Look  at  the  end  of  the  ninth  chapter,  and  see  how 
vividly  this  idea  is  brought  out.  "  If  I  wash  myself 
with  snow  water,  and  make  my  hands  never  so  clean  ; 
yet  shalt  Thou  plunge  me  in  the  ditch,  and  mine  own 
clothes  shall  abhor  me.  For  He  is  not  a  man,  as  I  am, 
that  I  should  answer  Him,  and  we  should  come  to- 
gether in  judgment.  Neither  is  there  any  daysman 
betwixt  us  that  might  lay  his  hand  upon  us  both." 
There  lay  Job's  difficulty  and  perplexity.  There  was 
no  avenue  of   communion  between  himself   and  his 


THE  DESIRE   OF  ALL   NATIONS  99 

Almii^lity  Jiidi^e.  If,  iiidocd,  God  liiid  a  human  side; 
to  His  nature,  then  Job  might  have  a  chance  of  being 
understood.  Or  since  tliat  could  not  be,  if  some  days- 
man could  be  found,  some  arbitrator,  a  mediator  "  that 
nnght  lay  his  hand  upon  us  both,"  one  who  could  span 
tlie  chasm  that  divided  the  creature  from  the  Creator, 
and  with  one  hand  touch  human  nature,  -with  the 
other  the  Divine,  thus  brintrini^  them  to^T^ether  to 
interpret  and  explain  them  to  each  other — then,  too, 
Job  felt  that  it  might  be  well  with  him.  Job  is  here 
the  representative  of  the  ancient  world,  feeling  its 
alienation  from  God,  sinking  beneath  its  accumulate<l 
woes,  and  groping  about  for  a  Mediator  who  should 
reconcile  human  nature  with  its  Maker.  The  tra- 
ditions of  mankind  bear  witness  to  the  universal 
consciousness  of  a  Fall,  the  blight  of  some  mysterious 
aboriginal  catastrophe,  under  the  shadow  of  which 
man  now  lies,  exiled  from  a  Golden  Age  which  the 
race  liad  once  enjo^^ed,  and  bearing  about  with  him 
in  his  inmost  being  an  hereditary  bias  towards  evil. 

The  article  of  the  creed  which  deals  with  the  Incar- 
nation is  the  answer  of  Christianity  to  all  these  instinc- 
tive longings  of  humanity.  It  tells  of  a  Divine  Saviour. 
"  the  Desire  of  all  nations,"  made  Man  "  for  us  and  for 
our  salvation,"  Who  came  to  be  "the  Way, tlie  Trutli. 
and  the  Life ; "  to  satisfy  man's  thirst  for  knowledge 


lOO  THE  INCARNATION' 

and  craving  for  beauty ;  to  comfort  the  mourners  by- 
bringing  life  and  immortality  to  light,  and  to  reconcile 
the  creation  with  its  Maker  by  incorporating  with  His 
Divine  Person  a  nature  which  is  in  touch  with  created 
life  in  all  its  series  from  inorganic  matter  up  to  spirit. 
Men  of  science  assure  us  that  the  lower  forms  of  life 
are  recapitulated  in  the  human  embryo,  and  St.  Paul 
tells  us  that  the  whole  creation  is  "  recapitulated "  in 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  Why,  then,  was 
the  Incarnation  necessary  ?  Not,  as  has  been  some- 
times supposed,  to  appease  an  angry  Deity  who  could 
only  be  pacified  by  the  endless  torment  of  the  race,  or 
by  the  vicarious  death  of  an  innocent  victim  of  infinite 
^?  worth.  The  Son  of  God  would  have  become  incarnate, 
thoufrh  without  sufierins^  or  death,  if  man  had  never 
sinned ;  for  without  the  Incarnation  the  gulf  between 
the  Creator  and  the  creature  could  not  have  been 
bridged.  Man's  fall  doubtless  furnished  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  exercise  of  God's  redeeming  mercy 
through  the  Incarnation.  God  the  Son  became  man 
to  reconcile  all  creation  with  the  Creator ;  and  to  do 
this  in  the  case  of  fallen  man,  it  was  necessary  to  make 
him  anew,  to  place,  that  is,  a  new  organic  force  at  the 
.  centre  of  his  being,  so  that  human  life  should  thence- 
forward develop  heavenward  through  sacramental 
union  with  the  Second  Adam  instead  of  earthward,  as 


IN  /^ELATION  TO    THE   FALL.  loi 

foniierl}',  tlirough  its  connection  with  tlic  first  Adam 
l)y    natural    generation.       Twice,    and    twice    only, 
tliroughout  the  long  extent  of  human  history,  have 
the  fortunes  of  our  race  been  summed  up  and  centered 
in  a  single  person :  the  first  time  in  Adam,  who  fell  in 
Eden ;  the  second  time  in  Christ,  Who  in  our  nature 
conquered  sin  and  death  on  Calvary  and  in  Joseph  of 
Arimathea's  tomb.     With  these  two  fountain-heads  of 
humanity  we   Christians   are  organically  connected ; 
and  the  connection  is  as  real  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other.     Not  by  following  the  evil  example  set  by  our 
first  parents  are  w^e  ruined,  as  Pelagius  erroneously 
taught,  but  by  inheriting  from  them,  through  organic 
descent,  a  nature  biased  to  evil.     We  are  all  conscious 
of   this  evil  bias,  and  the  transmission  of  moral  as, 
well   as   physical    qualities,   by   descent   through   an 
ancestral  line,  is  now  one  of  the  established  facts  of 
physiology  and  moral  science.     In  like  manner   our 
redemption   through    Christ   must    also    be   through 
organic  union  with  Him,  and  not  by  any  mere  imita- 
tion of  Him,  however  close.     His  own  language  about 
the  Vine  and  the  branches  has  otherwise  no  meaninf^ : 
nor  has  St.  Paul's    oft-recurring  antithesis    between 
the  first  Adam  and  the  Second,  the  old  Man  and  the 
New. 


VL 

"And  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of 
THE  Vn^GiN  Mary." 

MIRACULOUS  BASIS  OF  CHRISTIANITY, 

Christianity  rests  on  three  miracles,  which  are 
absolutely  essential  to  it — the  miracles  of  our  Lord's 
Conception,  of  His  Resurrection  from  the  dead,  and 
of  His  Ascension  into  heaven.  Get  rid  of  any  one  of 
these  miracles,  and  Christianity  immediately  collapses. 
It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  consider  them  carefully, 
and  I  will  begin  with  the  first,  leaving  the  other  two 
till  we  come  to  them  in  res^ular  order.  If  I  can  show 
that  physical  science  has  no  valid  reason  for  rejecting 
the  first  I  shall  have  blunted  the  edge  of  the  attack 
on  the  others.  The  validity  of  the  evidence  belongs 
to  another  field  of  inquiry,  into  which  I  do  not  now 
enter,  further  than  to  express  my  conviction  that  no 
event  in  ancient  history  rests  on  better  evidence  than 
our  Lord's  Resurrection,  from  which  His  Ascension 
is  a  natural  corollary.  His  miraculous  Conception  is 
obviously   not   amenable   to    the    ordinary   rules    of 


LAirS  Of   NATURE   NOT  CAUSES.  103 


OVl 


once— a  defecfc  which  it  shares  with  the  paternity 
uf  every  child  of  Adam.  The  only  ol)jection  against 
our  Lord's  miraculous  Conception  with  which  it  is 
})ossiblc  to  grapple  is  the  physical  one — namely,  that 
it  is  opposed  to  the  laws  of  Nature ;  and  to  that  I 
confine  myself. 

In  order,  then,  to  get  a  clear  idea  of  what  is  meant 
by  our  Lord's  miraculous  Conception,  we  must  con- 
sider the  relation  of  miracles  in  general  to  what  are 
called  the  laws  of  Nature  ?     What  do  we  mean  by 
a    law    of   Nature  ?      Is    the    miracle   of   our    Lord's 
Conception  opposed  to  any  law  of  Nature  or  of  the 
human  understanding  ?     I  think  I  can  give  you  some 
reasons   for   believing   that   it   is   not.       Writers   on 
physical  science  are  in  the  habit  of  using  law  and 
cause  as   if   they  were   interchangeable  expressions. 
But  in  reality  the  laws  of  Nature  are  not  causes  at 
all  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word  cause.      By  the 
laws  of  Nature  we  merely  mean  that  certain  phenomena 
are  observed  always  to  follow  one  another  in  regular 
sequence  or  order.    If  you  anal}>ze  your  own  thoughts, 
you  will  find  that  you  cannot  dissociate  the  idea  of 
causation  from  will ;  and  it  is  this  impossibility  which 
lias  made  men  personify  the  forces  of  Nature  under 
the  name  of  laws,  as  if  they  were  themselves  causes. 
riant  a  seed  in  the  earth  ;  after  a  time  it  strikes  rootij 


104  THE  LAWS  OF  NATURE 

downwards  and  pushes  a  sprout  above  the  ground. 
What  is  the  cause  ?  It  never  occurs  to  you  to  believe 
that  the  earth  caused  it.  Do  you  say  that  it  was 
caused  by  a  law  of  Nature  ?  But  what  do  you  mean 
by  that?  Nothing  more  than  that  one  fact  has 
followed  another  fact  in  a  certain  order,  and  has 
always  done  so  as  far  as  human  experience  can 
testify.  The  fact  is,  physical  science  knows  nothing 
of  causation,  nothing  of  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect;  what  it  knows  is  antecedent  and  consequent — 
a  very  different  matter.  It  is  an  axiom  in  science 
that  there  is  an  exact  equivalence  between  the  effect 
and  its  cause,  that  there  can  be  nothing  in  the  effect 
which  was  not  previously  in  its  cause.  You  fire  a 
bullet  through  the  air,  and  you  know  that  it  will  not 
go  on  for  ever ;  that  it  will  fall  to  the  ground  at  the 
precise  point  where  the  force  that  expelled  it  from 
the  gun  has  become  exhausted ;  it  cannot  go  a  hair's 
breadth  further ;  there  is  an  exact  equivalence  between 
the  expelling  force  and  the  result.  But  if  you  see 
a  bullet  hitting  the  bull's-eye  of  a  target  repeatedly, 
your  reason  tells  you  that  there  is  no  equivalence 
between  the  effect  and  the  apparent  cause :  you  see 
that  there  is  more  in  the  repeated  accuracy  of  aim 
than  the  explosion  will  account  for ;  that  an  accidental 
explosion  of  a  bundle  of  cartridges  would  not  send 


MERELY  OBSERVED  SEQUENCES.  105 

bullet  after  bullet  into  the  bull's-eye.  You  conclude, 
therefore,  that  tlie  bullets  were  fired  from  a  gun, 
and  that  the  gun  was  directed  by  an  intelligent  will ; 
and  then  you  find  an  exact  equivalence  between  effect 
and  cause.  You  place  a  magnet  and  a  piece  of  iron 
on  a  table,  and  you  observe  the  iron  moving  towards 
the  magnet.  Why  ?  You  know  that  the  iron  does 
not  move  of  itself  like  a  slave  obeying  a  master's 
look,  and  you  know  also  that  the  magnet  is  as  uncon- 
scious and  senseless  as  the  iron  which  it  pulls.  How 
then  does  it  pull  the  iron  ?  There  is  no  visible  or 
tangible  connection.  You  say  that  the  cause  is 
attraction.  But  you  explain  nothing  by  saying  that. 
Your  explanation  merely  means  that  magnet  and  iron 
always  act  in  that  way  towards  each  other.  You 
feel  therefore  that  there  is  more  in  the  effect  than 
the  magnet  will  account  for.  There  is  no  equivalence 
until  you  reach  will.  The  constitution  of  your  own 
mind  tells  you  so.  And  so  with  regard  to  all  the 
so-called  laws  of  Nature.  They  are  not  causes  at  all 
in  the  scientific  meaning  of  the  word ;  they  are 
simply  observed  sequences.  In  the  strict  sense  of 
the  word  law  has  no  self-executive  force;  it  always 
implies  a  will  behind  it.  It  is  the  law  of  England 
that  a  murderer  shall  be  hanjred  ;  but  the  law  cannot 
enforce    itself;    apart    from    intelligent    will    it    is 


lo6  NATURE  IMPLIES  CREATIVE    WILL. 

nothing.  Similarly  the  laws  of  Nature  require  belief 
in  a  will  behind  them  to  account  for  them.  Once 
admit  the  existence  of  such  a  will,  and  you  cannot 
object  to  a  miracle  on  the  simple  ground  that  it  is  a 
violation  of  natural  law.  For  natural  law  is  simply 
the  expression  of  a  Divine  Will  energizing  in  Nature. 
Take  the  origin  of  life,  for  example.  None  of  the 
so-called  laws  of  Nature  will  account  for  it.  The 
doctrine  of  Biogenesis — that  is,  life  from  preceding 
life — is,  by  the  admission  of  Professor  Huxley, 
"  victorious  along  the  whole  line."  Professor  Tyndall 
has  demonstrated  this  conclusion  by  experimental 
evidence,  and  he  has  affirmed  that  to  seek  for  "  tlie 
promise  and  potency  of  all  terrestrial  life  in  matter  " 
is  to  "  cross  the  boundary  of  the  experimental 
evidence,"  and  fall  back  on  the  imagination.  In 
other  words,  if  we  rely  on  scientific  evidence  we  are 
forced  back  to  a  creative  will  as  the  explanation  of 
the  phenomena  of  life. 

But  if  there  is  such  a  cause  behind  the  forces  of 
Nature,  an  ever-present  Will  of  which  they  are  merely 
the  expression,  surely  it  stands  to  reason  that  such  a 
Power  can  manipulate  His  own  forces — can  vary  their 
direction  and  their  results.  Antecedent  objection  is 
out  of  the  question.  It  is  a  matter  of  evidence  pure 
and  simple  in  each  given  case.     A  miracle,  bear  in 


AfAN  RULES  PHYSICAL  FORCES,  107 

iniiKl,  does  not  mean  a  violation,  or  even  a  suspension, 
of  any  natural  law.  I  throw  a  stone  into  the  air, 
and  it  goes  up  against  the  law  of  gi'avitation.  But  I 
do  not  thereby  suspend,  much  less  violate,  the  law  of 
gravitation.  It  goes  on  all  the  same  in  its  silent 
might  and  majesty.  I  force  the  stone  against  it  for 
a  short  distance  by  my  will  acting  through  muscular 
energy.  But  I  do  not  stop  the  law  of  gravity  for  an 
instant,  any  more  than  I  stop  for  an  instant  the 
current  of  a  river  when  I  drive  a  boat  against  it  by 
oar  or  steam.  Now  the  question  with  regard  to 
miracles  is:  Can  will  or  spirit  so  act  upon  natural 
forces  as  to  brin^r  about  results  different  from,  and  it 
may  be  contrary  to,  what  would  otherwise  have 
liappened  ?  I  have  said  on  a  previous  occasion  that 
man  is  a  kind  of  god,  a  creator  in  a  subordinate  sense, 
"a  creature,  yet  a  cause."  Can  he  do  anything 
analojrous  to  what  we  call  a  miracle  ?  Let  us  think. 
A  man  imbibes  poison.  Leave  the  laws  of  Nature  to 
take  their  course,  and  the  man  will  die.  But  human 
will  interposes,  and  applies  an  antidote  which  coun- 
teracts the  action  of  the  poison.  No  law  of  Nature  is 
violated,  but  one  natural  force  is  made  to  correct  tht^ 
otherwise  fatal  effect  of  another.  A  ship  is  deserted 
and  dismantled  on  the  ocean.  Left  to  the  uncon- 
trolled action  of  the  laws  of  Nature,  it  will  be  engulfed 


io8  AND  HAS  POWER   OVER  NATURE. 

by  the  waves  or  dashed  against  the  rocks.  Again  a 
human  will  intervenes,  and  by  an  arrangement  of 
sails  and  rudder  saves  the  ship  by  means  of  the  very 
forces  which,  left  to  themselves,  would  have  destroyed 
it.  Electricity  is  a  powerful  force  diffused  in  the  air, 
and  latent  in  various  substances.  Left  to  itself  it 
acts  blindly,  and  sometimes  destructively.  Man  lays 
hold  of  it,  imprisons  it,  lights  his  houses  and  streets 
with  it,  uses  it  like  a  beast  of  burden,  and  makes  it 
a  medium  of  communication  in  a  moment  of  time 
between  himself  and  his  fellow-man  on  the  other  side 
of  the  globe.  You  read  in  history  of  districts  whicli 
were  formerly  fertile  and  now  are  barren.  What  is 
the  explanation  ?  That  men  wantonly  or  ignorantly 
destroyed  the  woods  which  attracted  the  rain  that 
fertilized  the  land.  The  influence  of  forests  on  climate 
is  now  one  of  the  commonplaces  of  natural  science.  A 
suggestion  was  made  some  years  ago  to  let  the  sea 
into  the  great  desert  of  Sahara.  Scientific  men 
immediately  sounded  an  alarm  because,  they  said,  the 
flooding  of  the  Sahara  would  certainly  alter  com- 
pletely the  climate  of  Europe,  and  probably  bring 
back  the  glacial  period.  Take  another  illustration — 
that  of  a  man,  nearly  drowned,  rescued  in  a  state  of 
unconsciousness.  Leave  him  to  the  uncontrolled 
■Bction  of  the  laws  of  Nature,  and  he  will  inevitably 


ACTION  AT  A   DISTANCE.  109 

perish.  But  human  will  comes  in,  and  restores  Hi'e 
by  manipulating  forces  which,  left  to  their  natural 
course,  would  destroy  it.  It  is  the  same  in  the  case 
of  any  bodily  illness.  Leave  the  sick  man  to  the 
mercy  of  the  forces  of  Nature  and  he  will  die.  But 
the  physician  takes  him  in  hand  and  reverses  the 
{)rocess  of  dissolution.  In  all  these  and  similar  ways 
man  can  so  manipulate  the  laws  of  Nature  as  to 
produce  results  other  than  would  have  followed  from 
the  laws  of  Nature  left  to  themselves.  As  Bacon  says, 
"Man  obtains  mastery  over  Nature  by  obeying  Nature.'* 
But   if   the    laws  of    Nature   are  nothing  but    the 

o 

expression  of  a  supreme  Will  pervading  and  ruling 
Nature,  obviously  such  a  power  may  at  discretion 
act  directly — that  is,  without  using  any  intermediate 
agency.  That  leads  to  the  question  whether  will  can 
really  act  upon  matter  directly.  Undoubtedly  it  can. 
I  raise  my  arm,  and  I  do  so  by  my  will — by  tlio 
direct  action  of  spirit  on  matter.  I  may  be  told  that 
the  movement  of  my  arm  is  really  caused  by  the 
displacement  of  certain  particles  in  my  brain.  Yes, 
but  the  change  in  my  brain  was  itself  caused  by  my 
volition.  Moreover,  will  can  act  upon  will,  as  the 
indisputable  phenomena  of  animal  magnetism  show. 
J]ut  can  will  act  at  a  distance,  without  contact  ?  Not 
only  can  it  do  so,  but  in  matter  of  fact  all  action  is 


no  ALL  ACTION  IS 

really  action  at  a  distance.  That  is  a  comparatively 
modern  discovery.  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  in  his  own  line 
perhaps  the  greatest  philosopher  the  world  has  seen, 
pronounced  the  suggestion  of  action  at  a  distance, 
when  first  made,  an  "  absurdity  so  great  that  no  man, 
who  has  in  philosophical  matters  a  faculty  of  think- 
ing, can  ever  fall  into  it."  Twenty -five  years  after- 
wards the  great  philosopher,  with  fuller  knowledge 
and  a  juster  appreciation  of  the  limits  of  human 
science,  preached  the  very  doctrine  which  he  had 
in  his  rashness  denounced  as  an  absurdity.  "  Have 
not  then  small  particles  of  bodies,"  he  asked,  "  certain 
powers,  virtues,  or  forces,  by  which  they  act  at  a 
distance  ? "  We  are  now  all  familiar  with  action  at 
a  distance  in  the  influence  of  the  moon  on  the  tides, 
and  of  the  heavenly  bodies  on  each  other,  as  well  as 
with  magnetic  and  other  forces  of  attraction.  But  in 
the  last  analysis,  as  I  have  said,  all  action  is  action  at 
a  distance ;  there  is  no  direct  contact  between  bodies, 
great  or  small,  that  act  upon  each  other.  Go  into  the 
fields  on  a  still  sultry  day  in  summer,  when  there  is 
not  a  breath  of  wind  to  stir  the  air  about  you.  All 
Nature  seems  asleep  ;  the  cattle  lie  slumbering  in  the 
shade ;  the  birds  are  silent  in  the  groves ;  not  a  leaf 
flutters  in  the  woods ;  not  a  blade  of  grass  waves  in 
the  meadow  ;  there  is  apparently  an  entire  absence  of 


ACTION  AT  A   DISTANCE.  Ill 

life  and  mo\'oinent.  But  if  you  had  eyes  that  could 
penetrate  through  leaf  and  stem,  through  blade  of 
grass,  and  soil,  and  rock,  and  if  you  had  ears  that 
coukl  catch  the  secret  harmonies  of  Nature,  you  would 
he  amazed  at  the  multitude  of  sights  and  sounds  that 
would  be  suddenly  revealed  to  you.  You  would  find 
that  there  was  no  stillness  at  all  in  the  landscape  that 
erstwhile  appeared  to  be  so  fast  asleep.  There  is 
movement  everywhere.  The  tree,  whose  leaves  droop 
motionless  in  the  noonday  heat,  and  whose  trunk 
stands  erect  against  the  sky,  is  throbbing  with 
currents  of  life  rushing  through  every  pore.  A  stream 
of  sap  is  coursing  between  bark  and  tissue,  and 
millions  of  vesicles  empty  themselves  every  moment 
through  all  its  leaves.  There  is  not  a  blade  of  grass 
in  the  fields  which  is  not  palpitating  with  the  life 
that  is  incessantly  circulating  through  it.  The  earth 
beneath  your  feet,  too,  is  being  rapidly  ploughed  by 
numberless  worms  to  make  it  fit  for  the  husbandry  of 
man.  And  not  only  so,  but  the  most  solid  parts  of 
the  earth  are  in  a  state  of  perpetual  unrest.  I  do  not 
mean  their  motion  through  space  together  with  our 
])lanet,  although  that  also  is  sufiiciently  wond(irful, 
when  you  reflect  that  we  who  are  assembled  just  now 
in  this  building  are  —  building  and  all  —  rusliing 
through  space  at  the  rate  of  some  nineteen  miles  a 


ii2  HO IV  MAN'S   WILL  INFLUENCES 

second.     What  I  mean  is  that  there  is  not  a  stone  in 
the  Cathedral  which   is   not   in   a   state  of  constant 
internal  agitation.     Each  stone  is  a  conglomeration  of 
innumerable  atoms,  all  in  vibration,  and  not  one  of 
them  touching  another.     Even  a  polished  bar  of  steel 
is  composed  of  minute  atoms  permeated  by  currents 
of  ether,  and  when  you  hear  of  steel  and  iron  con- 
tracting or  expanding  according  to  the  temperature, 
what  is  meant  is  that  the  component  atoms   recede 
from  or  approach  each  other.     Touch  they  never  do. 
Talk  of   the   mysteries  of   faith !     Why,  we  cannot 
move  a  step  without  stumbling  against  some  mystery 
of   science.     But   can   man's   will   set   God's  will    in 
motion,  as  in  prayer  ?     Certainly.     There  is  a  Latin 
proverb  which  says  that  "  to  labour  is  to  pray,"  and, 
like  most  proverbs,  it  concentrates  a  volume  of  wisdom 
into   a   phrase.     There   is   a   close   analogy   between 
prayer  and  labour.     You  ask  if  man's  will  can  set 
God's  in  motion.     All  the  good  we  do  or  can  enjoy 
comes   really   from   God.      "Every   good   gift,"   says 
St.  James,  "and   every  perfect  gift,  is  from  above 
and  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of  lights."     Our 
bountiful  harvests  come  from  God.     But  how  do  they 
come  from  Him  ?     Not  like  the  manna  in  the  wilder- 
ness, without  the  co-operation   of   man.     The  earth 
will  not  yield  her  increase,  will  not  yield  the  good 


TIIK    WILL    OF  COD.  II5 

things  wliicli  CJoil  has  storcMl  within  Ikt  for  man's 
use,  unless  man  sets  God's  will  in  motion  by  his  own 
labour.  He  must  plough,  and  weed,  and  plant  seed, 
and  reap  the  golden  liarvest,  else  God's  will  on  his 
behalf  will  not  aet.  God  has  laid  up  in  the  bowels 
of  the  earth  coal  to  give  light  and  heat  to  man.  But 
man  must  search  for  it,  an<l  with  great  toil  draw  it 
to  the  surface.  The  precious  metals  and  costly  gems 
are  all  obtained  by  diligent  search  and  hard  labour. 
Jt  is  God's  will  that  man  should  possess  them  ;  but 
God's  will  would  ha\<'  remained  for  ever  inoperative 
if  man  had  not  set  it  in  motion  by  acting*-  as  its 
Histrument.  It  is  the  same  in  the  sphere  of  intellect 
and  morals.  Wisdom,  learning,  virtue,  all  come  from 
(iod  as  their  source;  but  they  reach  us  mediately 
through  services  c)f  mutual  love.  It  is  God's  will  that 
your  children  should  be  instructed  in  all  things  need- 
ful ;  but  His  will  must  remain  unfruitful  unless  you 
do  your  part.  Neither  your  prayer  nor  labour  can 
chancre  the  will  of  God,  for  it  is  unchano:eable.  His 
goodness  towards  you  nuist  therefore  remain  inopera- 
tive unless  you  bring  your  own  will  into  conformity 
witli  His,  just  as  certain  parts  of  the  earth  are  always 
fast  bound  in  frost  and  snow  because  they  are  turned 
away  from  the  sun. 

J)Ut  it  is  said   that  a  miracle  would  be  a  breach  of 

1 


114  CONTINUITY  OF  NATURE  AND 

continuity  in  the  order  of  Nature.  Well,  but  are  there 
not  breaches  of  continuity  in  the  Avorld,  as  physical 
science  has  revealed  it  to  us  ?  What  is  the  doctrine 
of  evolution  but  a  description  of  progressive  changes 
marked  by  frequent  breaches  of  continuity  quite  as 
great  as  any  of  the  Christian  miracles  ?  According 
to  that  doctrine  all  the  life  on  this  globe  is  derived 
from  a  minute  primordial  life-cell.  But  that  life-cell 
itself,  the  passage  from  dead  matter  to  life,  is  a  greater 
breach  of  continuity,  a  more  stupendous  innovation 
on  the  previous  order  of  Nature,  than  a  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  The  origin  of  life  is  more  wonderful 
than  its  restoration  in  any  particular  organism.  The 
passage  from  vegetable  to  animal  life — assuming  such 
passage  for  the  sake  of  argument — was  another  enor- 
mous breach  of  continuity.  The  passage  of  one 
species  into  another — again  assuming  as  a  fact  what  is 
only  so  far  a  conclusion  without  verified  premisses — 
was  another  serious  breach  of  continuity.  In  plain 
truth,  our  belief  in  the  continuity  of  the  laws  of  Nature 
does  not  rest  on  reason  at  all,  but  on  imagination.  The 
order  of  Nature  of  which  we  have  experience  has  lasted 
a  long  time,  and  we  believe  that  it  has  lasted  always 
and  will  last  for  ever.  But  this  is  a  pure  assumption. 
It  is  certain  that  the  present  order  of  Nature  did  not 
always  exist,  and   that   it   will   some   da}^,  however 


CI/KISrS  MIRACULOUS  COSCEmON.  115 

distant,  come  to  an  end.  One  of  tlie  most  dogmatic 
of  tlie  teacliers  of  evolution^  lias  not  hesitated  to  say 
tliat  our  belief  in  the  continuance  of  even  "  the  laws 
of  geometry  and  mechanics  is  an  assumption  we  have 
no  right  whatever  to  make."  The  only  fact  con- 
tinuous in  Nature  is  the  presence  of  its  Creator  and 
Ruler;  and  since  it  is  indisputable  that  He  has  re- 
peatedly innovated  on  existing  order  we  have  no 
ground  in  reason  or  in  Nature  to  justify  us  in  limiting 
His  power  at  any  given  point  in  the  evolution  of 
His  will. 

Let  us  then  apply  what  has  been  said  to  the  case  of 
our  Lord's  miraculous  Conception.  You  may  possibly 
be  able  to  follow  me  more  easily  if  we  look  at  the 
question  both  in  the  light  of  the  Mosaic  account  of 
man's  orifnn  and  in  that  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution. 

o 

The  two  accounts  agree  in  one  most  important  point, 
as  I  shall  presently  point  out.  Now,  as  regards  the 
hypothesis  of  the  transmutation  of  species — the  change, 
that  is,  of  one  species  int<^  another,  as  of  a  fish  into 
a  bird— I  have  as  a  Christian  no  prejudice.  How 
the  question  may  eventually  be  settled  is  a  matter  of 
indifference  to  Christianity.  For  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  can  only  deal  with  man's  body.  Physical 
science  knows  nothing  and  can  know  nothing  of  the 
»  The  late  Professor  Clifford. 


ii6  EVOLUTION  AND  SPECIAL    CREATIONS, 

immaterial  part  of  man;  and  the  genesis  of  the  human 
body,  be  it  by  special  creation  or  by  a  long  series 
of  developments  from  lower  forms  of  animal  lifcv 
may  be  settled  without  the  slightest  prejudice  to 
any  article  of  Christian  faith.  Christianity  comes 
in  at  the  point  where  a  body  was  prepared  for  a 
human  soul  capable  of  holding  communion  witli  its 
Maker.  At  the  same  time  I  must  add  that  hitherto 
there  is  no  conclusive  evidence,  nothing  that  could 
bo  admitted  as  evidence  in  an  English  court  of 
justice,  to  support  the  theory  of  tlie  transmutation  of 
species.  It  is  all  based  upon  a  series  of  ingenious 
assumptions  and  somewhat  plausible  guesswork.  The 
believers  in  transmutation  of  species  point  to  the 
similarity  of  pattern  in  the  construction  of  man  and 
of  the  inferior  animals,  and  declare  it  to  be  "  utterly 
inexplicable  "  upon  any  other  hypothesis  than  that 
of  a  common  ancestor.  But  that  is  an  entire  beo-orinof 
of  the  question.  It  is  much  more  rational  to  believe 
that  such  a  Being  as  we  believe  God  to  be  would  use 
a  general  plan  of  construction,  and  vary  it  in  details 
to  suit  different  species.  In  the  works  of  God  in 
Nature  we  observe  an  economy  of  power  together 
with  infinite  adaptability  in  matters  of  detail.  So 
much  power  is  exerted  as  is  needed ;  not  a  fraction 
more.     Yet  when  more  power  is  required  it  is  at  once 


MOSAIC  AC  CO  U. XT  AXD   EVOLUTIOW  117 

put  i'ortli  to  the  full  extent  of  tlie  need.  In  works  of 
human  skill  the  highest  genius  is  he  ^vlio  can  thus 
economize  power,  who  can  tit  a  lari^e  numl)er  of 
species  to  one  common  pattern.  But  man  through 
ignorance  wastes  much  power  in  the  process  of 
invention.  He  achieves  success  after  many  abortive 
efforts.  There  is  nothing  tentative  in  (lod's  work. 
His  skill  and  powx'r  are  always  ecpial  to  the  demand 
made  upon  them.  In  short,  all  the  arguments  used 
to  prove  transmutation  of  species  are,  to  put  it 
moderately,  at  least  as  valid  in  proof  of  special 
creations.  Let  me  add,  however,  that  hy  sp(>cial 
creations  I  do  not  understand  the  special  creation 
of  each  individual  by  a  miraculous  interposition 
of  Divine  power;  I  mean  the  creation  of  the  type 
in  each  case,  the  descent  being  by  evolution  or 
development.  But  let  us,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
assume  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  in  the  sense  of 
the  transmutation  of  species  is  true.  We  are  then 
confronted  by  two  views  of  man's  origin — the  Mosaic 
account  and  the  Evolutionist  account.  Tlie  Mo.saic 
account  of  creation  does  not  profess  to  be  a  scientific 
exposition.  Its  purpose  is  moral,  and  its  references 
to  the  subject-matter  of  physical  science  are  purely 
subordinate  and  subsidiary.  At  tlie  same  it  is  well 
to  remember  that  eminent  men  of  science,  including 


ii8  CHRIST'S  MIRACULOUS  CONCEPTION 

BufFon,  have  declared  that  man's  creation  as  described 
by  Moses  is  in  substantial  accordance  with  the  facts 
of  Nature. 

Now,  if  you  look  at  Gen.  i.  2,  you  will  find  that 
the  process  there  described  is  that  of  creation  in  the 
order  of  separate  species — a  type  of  each  kind  in  its 
maturity,  with  reproductive  power — "  whose  seed  is 
in  itself."  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  order  is  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  thought.  Logically  the 
parent  comes  before  the  offspring.  You  must  think 
of  an  oak  before  you  get  the  idea  of  an  acorn.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Mosaic  account,  the  different  species, 
man  included,  were  created  in  their  types,  with  power 
to  reproduce  their  kind.  And  humanity  is  represented 
as  unisexual  at  first,  or  rather  as  embracing  the 
attributes  of  both  sexes  in  a  single  personality.  Adam 
had  apparently  the  qualities  of  both  sexes  included 
in  himself  at  his  creation.  The  separation  into  two 
sexes  took  place  afterwards.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that 
Plato  suggests  the  same  idea  in  one  of  his  speculations 
on  the  origin  of  man.  Was  this  an  intuition  of 
genius  ?  or  a  primeval  tradition  floating  down  the 
stream  of  time  ?  But  let  us  see  what  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  has  to  say  on  this  subject.  According  to 
that  doctrine,  life  started  on  its  various  peregrina- 
tions from  a  single  germ,  which  gradually  developed 


AO    VIOLATJOX  OF  NATURAL    LAW.  119 

into  an  ori^ani/cd  l)cini^,  male  and  t'oniah'.  TluTe  was 
tlierefore  a  loni;-  period  of  time  dnrino'  wliicli  life  was 
propafi^ated  by  a  unisexual  process ;  when  the  repro- 
ductive power  energized  and  multiplied  tlirough  a 
single  stem.  So  far,  then,  the  Mosaic  account  of 
man's  origin  and  the  Evolutionist  account  are  in 
agreement.  They  difier  as  to  the  period  at  which 
the  life  which  man  shares  with  the  brutes  became 
bisexual ;  but  they  agree  that  at  a  stage  in  the  de- 
velopment the  reproductive  power,  which  had  included 
the  properties  of  both  sexes  in  one  indix  idual,  parted 
into  two  sexes.  But  if  that  is  so,  what  is  there  against 
reason  or  natural  lavr  in  the  belief  that  at  another 
critical  period  in  the  evolution  of  the  Divine  will  life 
should  be  transmitted  through  a  single  parent ;  that 
a  new  Head  of  humanity  should  be  produced  in  a 
new  way ;  that  the  moral  entail  of  descent  from 
Adam  should  in  Him  be  broken  ;  while  the  connection 
should  remain  intact  through  the  female  line  in  all 
that  appertained  to  the  essentials  of  humanit}* ;  the 
fecundating  element  being  supplied  direct  by  "  the 
Lord  and  Giver  of  life  "  ?  Grant  that  God  can  dis- 
pense with  means  when  He  wills  ;  that  all  life  comes 
from  Him  ;  that  the  propagation  of  life  was  once 
unisexual :  and  you  will  see,  I  think,  that  there  is 
nothing  in  our  Lords  miraculous  concrption  that  need 


120  VIRGIN  BIRTHS  NOW. 

offend  our  reason  or  that  implies  any  violation  of 
natural  law.  And,  in  truth,  we  have  even  at  the 
present  day,  in  the  lower  forms  of  life,  instances  of 
virgin  births.  We  have  it  both  in  the  vegetable 
kingdom  and  in  the  animal.  I  need  only  refer  to 
working  bees,  which  are  now  known  to  be  the  off- 
spring of  the  female  alone.  It  is  hard  that  we  should 
be  put  to  the  proof  in  this  way  in  defence  of  one  of 
the  most  sacred  articles  of  our  faith ;  but  since  we  are 
put  on  our  defence,  it  is  well  that  we  should  be  pro- 
vided with  an  answer.  Even  Haeckel,  a  very  aggres- 
sive evolutionist,  who  would  probably  not  resent  the 
designation  of  atheist,  frankly  admits  the  phenomenon 
•of  virgin  births  as  an  incontestable  fact  in  the  animal 
kingdom.^ 

If  God  then  deviates  occasionally  even  now  from 
the  ordinary  process  of  propagating  life,  why  should 
it  be  thouofht  a  thins:  incredible  that  He  did  so  on 
SO  momentous  an  occasion  as  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Eternal  Word?  Judging  by  the  history  of  man's 
■original  creation,  by  our  Lord's  life,  and  by  what  we 
are  told  of  man's  life  in  heaven,  it  would  seem  that  the 
perfection  of  human  nature  lies  in  this  union  of  the 
spiritual  properties  of  both  sexes  in  a  single  personality ; 

^  Weismann  also,  in  the  Hercditij  and  Kindred  Biological  Prohlemts, 
deals  at  length  with  parthenogenesis  (see  pp.  225-24-8). 


7JrO  yJTi'KES  AV  CHRIST,  121 

the  scpanitlon  l)C'iiii;-  only  ijrovisloiuil  iui<l  ti-inporal. 
It  does  not  exist  in  lioaven.  Our  Lcn-d  tulls  us  s(j 
distinctly.  Human  beings  are  to  be  "  as  the  angels," 
*'  neitlier  marrying  nor  given  in  marriage  ; "  in  other 
words,  human  nature  will  revert  to  its  original  type 
in  Eden.  And  we  have  indications  of  this  in  the  case 
of  our  Lord-  Not  only  di<l  He  come  into  our  world 
without  the  intervention  of  a  human  father,  l)ut  it  is 
evident  from  the  Gospel  history  that  He  united  in  His 
humanity  the  moral  attributes  of  both  sexes  in  their 
integi'ity;  the  gentleness,  the  sympathy,  the  shriidv- 
ing  from  impurity,  the  self-sacrificing  tenderness 
which  are  characteristic  of  woman  in  her  ideal  state, 
toorether  with  the  couraoje,  the  stern  rectitude,  the 
scorn  for  cant  and  hypocrisy  which  belong  to  the 
male  sex  in  its  best  form.  Both  sexes,  therefore,  find 
their  ideal  in  Him,  and  can  approach  Him  with  more 
than  the  confidence  inspii-ed  by  the  best  type  of  each 
sex  on  earth. 

So  much,  then,  as  to  the  initial  miracle  on  which 
Christianity  is  based.  The  Second  Person  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity  "  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
of  the  Virgin  Mary ;  and  was  made  Man."  What  do 
v/e  mean  by  that  ?  We  do  not  mean  that  the  Son 
of  God  took  possession  of  an  already  existing  person 
called  Jl'sus  of  Nazareth,  and  fill-d  him  with  Divine 


122  BUT  ONLY  ONE  PERSON. 

power ;  for  in  that  case  there  would  have  been  two 
persons,  not  one— the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity 
and  the  Son  of  the  Virgin.  We  mean  that  the  Eternal 
Son  of  God,  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
formed  for  Himself  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  a 
human  body  and  a  human  soul,  with  all  the  essential 
attributes  belonging  to  each ;  but  not  a  human  person. 
He  had  thus,  and  has  still,  two  natures— the  Divine 
and  human — united  inseparably  for  ever  in  His  Divine 
personality.  He  had  two  wills— the  will  of  man  and 
the  will  of  God.  The  human  will  shrank  from  pain 
and  prayed  that  the  cup  of  agony  might  pass  away, 
but  submitted  itself  to  the  Divine  will  when  it  said, 
"  Not  My  will,  but  Thine  be  done."  He  "  grew  in 
wisdom  and  stature  " — that  is  to  say,  His  body  and 
soul,  with  the  faculties  belonging  to  each,  were  subject 
to  the  ordinary  laws  of  growth  and  development. 


yii. 

"And  was  madi-:  Max." 

sox  of  .vax,  xot  of  a  max. 

So  far  I  liave  endeavoured  to  sliow  that  tlic 
doctrine  of  our  Lord's  niii-aculous  Concepti<ju  was 
not  necessarily  inconsistent  with  the  teaching  of 
phj'sical  science.  We  are  now  to  consider  more  in 
detail  what  the  doctrine  implies.  The  creed  tells  us 
that  He  "  was  made  Man."  Not  n  man,  you  will 
observe.  The  distinction  is  vital.  It  was  manhood, 
not  a  man  ;  human  nature,  not  a  human  person,  that 
the  Eternal  Son  of  God  took  into  union  with  Himself. 
But  then  it  may  be  objected  :  If  it  be  true,  if  it  be 
really  a  fact  that  our  Lord  took  human  nature,  lackin:^ 
human  personality,  how  can  it  be  that  His  nature  is 
the  same  as  ours  ?  The  question  bristles  with  diffi- 
culties, and  it  is  impossible  to  answer  it  by  a  simph^ 
Yes  or  No.  It  is  so  easy  on  such  a  subject  to  suggest 
without  intendin--  it,  erroneous  impressions  to  persons 
not  familiarly  ac([uainte<l  with  scieutitic  theolog}',  that 


124  CHRIST  TOOK  ADAM'S  NATURE 

I  must  ask  you  to  be  so  good  as  to  give  your  closest 
attention  to  Avhat  I  am  about  to  say.  It  is  then  an 
article  o£  faith  that  our  Lord  took  human  nature  in 
its  integrity,  yet  without  a  human  personality.  On 
the  other  hand,  personality  is  an  essential  attribute  of 
human  beings.  The  two  statements  appear  to  be 
absolutely  contradictory  of  each  other.  How  shall 
we  reconcile  them  ?  A  closer  examination  will,  I 
think,  show  that  the  contradiction  is  really  on  the 
surface  only.  Every  kind  of  life  may  be  regarded 
under  two  aspects :  first,  as  a  universal ;  secondly,  as 
a  collection  of  individuals,  each  of  which  possesses  all 
tliat  belongs  to  the  definition  of  the  universal.  For 
example,  if  I  were  to  ask  any  of  you  to  define  a 
tree,  a  horse,  or  a  man,  you  would  at  once  enumerate 
all  those  qualities  which  all  trees,  or  all  horses,  or  all 
men  have  in  common  ;  you  would  describe,  in  other 
words,  the  universal  in  each  class,  but  you  would  not 
have  any  particular  tree,  or  horse,  or  man,  before 
your  mind;  you  would  describe  the  nature  wdiich 
each  class  possesses  in  common,  without  including  the 
individual  characteristics  which  distinguish  from  each 
other  the  members  of  the  class.  The  universal  of 
man  is  humanity,  not  any  particular  man ;  and  this 
humanity  existed  in  Adam  in  all  those  undeveloped 
potentialities  out  of  which  first  came  Eve,  and  then 


U'J77I0rT  ITS  rEKSOXA/JTV.  125 

tli('    whole    liuni.in    r.icc    in    its    loii^   linu   oi."    SL'p:UMt(; 
ixTsoiialitic's. 

Now  wliat  was  it  that  Adam  tmnsiiiitte»l  to 
liis  (Icsceiulants  {  Not  liis  personality,  for  tliat  was 
iiicoiniuunicahle.  No  human  being  can  part  with 
liis  own  personality,  or  share  it  with  another.  We 
read  that  Adam  begat  sons  and  daugliters — that  is 
to  say,  that  he  passed  on  to  his  ofispring  liis  own 
nature  in  its  t'uhiess ;  but  his  personality  remained 
cxclusiN'el}'  his  own  for  ever,  and  liis  descendants  had 
each  their  own  personalities.  Thus  we  sec  that  human 
nature  is  transmissible,  but  not  human  personality. 
In  the  case  of  every  man  and  woman  the  nature 
derived  from  Adam  is  developed  round  a  new  personal 
centre.  We  are  all  one  through  our  unity  of  race — 
that  unit}^  of  nature  which  we  have  in  common  as 
children  of  Adam.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  all 
separate  individuals  through  our  possession  of  that 
sovereign  principle  of  action  in  the  soul  to  which  we 
give  the  name  of  personality.  Get  that  distinction 
clearly  into  your  minds.  By  natural  descent  from 
Adam  each  of  us  possesses  the  integral  essence  of 
humanity  ;  but  this  humanity  is  organized  in  every 
individual  on  a  new  personality  not  derived  from 
A<lam.  Xow  wliat  happened  in  the  case  of  our  Lord 
when   He  took   human   nature  was  this.     In  urdur  to 


126  PERSONALITY  NOT  TRANSMISSIBLE. 

cut  off  the  entail  of  that  tainted  nature  which  we  all 
derive  by  our  conception  and  birth  from  our  first 
parents,  the  germ  of  humanity  which  w^as  derived 
from  Adam  through  the  Virgin  Mary  was  vitalized, 
without  the  intervention  of  man,  by  the  direct  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life ; " 
and  instead  of  being  like  ours  centred  in  a  new 
human  personality,  it  was  taken  up  into  the 
Personality  of  the  Eternal  Word,  the  Second  Person 
in  the  Blessed  Trinity.  So  you  see  all  the  humanity 
that  the  first  Adam  passed  on  to  his  race  was  thus 
taken  essentially  by  the  Last  Adam  when  He  became 
man,  sin  only  excepted  ;  for  sin  is  no  part  of  human 
nature,  it  is  only  a  flaw  in  it.  It  is  a  part,  as  we 
know  only  too  well,  of  the  human  nature  which  we 
inherit ;  but  that  nature  is  a  diseased  nature,  not  the 
pure  and  flawless  nature  in  which  man  was  created  in 
the  beginning. 

Was  then  our  Lord's  human  nature  precisely  and 
without  restriction  the  same  as  ours  ?  Not  altogether. 
Let  me  point  out  some  very  important  differences.  In 
the  first  place,  our  Lord  had  no  human  father,  as  I 
have  just  explained.  In  the  second  place.  He  had 
no  human  personality ;  His  person  was  the  Person 
of  God  the  Son,  Whicli  took  up  into  itself  all  the 
essential   attributes   of    human    nature,   and    united 


CIlKISrS  nUMAXlTY  AXD   OURS.  \zi 

them  with  tlic  Divine  luituiv  for  cvir :  hoth  natures 
however,  tliougli  united,  remaining  severally  distinct; 
there  was  no  fusion,  resulting  in  a  fresh  composite 
nature.  Thirdly,  our  Lord  was  sinless  by  nature,  an<l 
we  come  into  the  world  sinful  by  nature  ;  "by  nature, ' 
says  St.  ]\iul.  '  \ve  are  all  cliildren  of  wrath.'  \\\ 
nature  our  Lord  was  absolutely  sinless,  and  that  alone 
makes  a  vast  difference  l)etween  His  nature  and  ours. 
In  the  fourth  place.  His  knowledge  and  His  sanctity 
w^ere  transcendent.  He  possessed  foreknowledi^c  11  <• 
knew  beforehand  the  details  of  His  own  Passion,  and 
that  is  one  element  of  His  self-sacrifice  on  earth  which 
we  arc  all  a  great  deal  too  apt  to  forget.  It  is  true 
in  a  large  measure  that  for  us  ignorance  is  l)liss. 
Human  life  would  become  intolerable  if  we  knew 
beforehand  not  only  its  great  tragedies  and  sornnvs, 
but  even  the  petty  details  and  worries  which  encom- 
pass man's  daily  life ;  if  every  man  could  see  clearly 
in  prospect  before  him  all  the  annoyances,  troubles, 
and  pains  w^hich  are  strewn  along  the  patli  of  every 
child  of  Adam  through  life.  Our  Lord  did  not  <njoy 
this  consolation;  nothing  took  Him  by  surprise:  n<» 
pain  or  agony  came  upon  Him  unawares  :  and  th(^ 
gospel  narrative  shows  that  His  horror  of  His  final 
confiict  with  the  powers  of  darkness  became  some- 
times so  intense  that  it    forced    Him   to  rehearse   it 


128  THE  SAME,    YET  DIFFERENT. 

beforehand  to  His  disciples,  as  if  yearning  for  the 
human  sympathy  which  they  were  unable  to  give 
Him.  He  told  them  on  the  way  up  to  Jerusalem 
before  His  Passion  that  He  was  about  to  be  delivered 
to  the  Gentiles;  to  be  buffeted,  spat  upon,  put  to 
death,  and  buried.  There  was  thus  a  great  difference 
between  His  human  nature  and  ours,  in  tliat  He,  as 
man,  possessed,  within  certain  limits,  a  minute  know- 
ledge of  His  own  future  life.  Then  again.  His  bod}^ 
was  different  from  ours  in  regard  to  corruptibility. 
Our  bodies  are  liable  to  decay  and  corruption  ;  but 
His  knew  no  corruption:  it  was  absolutely  incor- 
ruptible ;  there  was  no  element  of  disease  in  His 
nature.  We  read  of  His  being  hungry,  thirsty,  and 
weary,  and  of  His  needing  rest  and  taking  repose  in 
sleep ;  but  we  never  read  of  His  being  sick,  for  there 
was  no  element  of  deca}^  or  principle  of  dissolution  in 
His  human  nature.  And  thus  "  death  had  no  domi- 
nion over  Him ; "  it  was  impossible  that  death  should 
hold  Him  captive.  "  I  lay  down  My  life,"  He  said ; 
"  no  man  taketh  it  from  Me."  St.  Peter  gives  a 
striking  expression  to  this  thought  when  he  tells  the 
Jews  that  they  had  killed  "  the  Prince  of  Life."  The 
word  in  the  original  implies  that  Jesus  was  the 
Author  and  Ruler  of  Life,  and  suggests  tliat  the  slay- 
ing of  Him  was  not  only  a  crime  but  a  foll}^  and  an 


ILLUSTRATIVE   EXAMPLES.  127 

;il).sunlity,  since  "it  was  not  possiltlo  tliat  He  should 
be  holdon  of  deatli*' — Ho  the  Prince,  Source,  Leader 
iVoni  Whom  all  forms  of  life  come.  His  body,  more- 
over, had  inlierently  health-giving  and  life-giving- 
properties.  We  have  several  instances  of  this  in  the 
(lospcls.  We  read  that  in  curing  a  man  born  blind 
'•  He  spat  on  the  ground,  and  made  clay  of  tlie  spittle, 
and  anointed  the  eyes  of  the  l»lind  man  with  the 
clay."  Does  not  this  imply  some  healing  ncxiuf 
between  the  cure  and  His  sacred  body  ?  But  Vv^e 
have  much  stronger  instances  than  this.  Look  at  the 
end  of  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel :  "  And  when  the  men  of  that  place  had 
knowledge  of  Him,  they  sent  out  into  all  that 
country  round  about,  and  brought  unto  Him  all  that 
were  diseased ;  and  besought  Him  that  they  might 
only  touch  the  hem  of  His  garment :  and  as  many 
as  touched  it  were  made  perfectly  whole."  A  more 
striking  case  still  is  that  of  the  woman  witli  the 
issue  of  blood.  In  preaching  on  that  miracle  lately, 
1  pointed  out  tlie  remarkable  fact  tliat  mere  contact 
with  the  hem  of  our  Lord's  garment,  on  the  part  of 
a  patient  in  a  state  of  high  spiritual  recejitivit}', 
extracted  virtue  from  His  sinless  body  without  any 
previous  knowledge  on  His  part  of  what  the  woman 
ha<l  done.     His  body  seems  to  have  been  so  charged 

K 


I30  A   SINLESS  BODY  POSSESSES 

with  virtue,  with  the  essence  of  life,  that  it  dis- 
charo^ed  it  Kke  a  shock  of  mao-netism  at  the  touch 
upon  His  clothes  of  the  finger  of  a  highly  nervous 
and  exalted  faith.  Now  when  you  reflect  that  the 
germs  of  disease  and  death  are  derived  from  human 
bodies  by  contact  with  the  clothes  that  cover  them, 
there  seems  to  be  nothing  unreasonable  in  believing 
that  mere  contact  with  the  clothes  of  an  absolutely 
pure  human  body,  which  was,  moreover,  united 
with  a  Divine  Personality,  attracted  life-giving 
virtue.  And  as  some  human  bodies  are  predis- 
posed to  disease,  so  doubtless  bodies  in  a  state  of 
spiritual  susceptibility  would  receive  benefit  when 
others  not  similarly  afiectcd  would  receive  none. 
There  are,  indeed,  indications  scattered  through  the 
Bible  that  the  human  body  in  its  ideal  condition  is 
endowed  with  the  property  of  overcoming  disease 
and  even  death.  We  have  two  remarkable  instances 
of  this  in  the  Old  Testament.  You  remember  the 
story  of  Elijah  raising  to  life  the  child  of  the  widow 
of  Zarephat.  The  prophet  laid  his  own  body  three 
times  on  the  body  of  the  child,  and  by  this  contact, 
united  with  prayer,  the  child's  life  was  restored. 
There  is  a  very  similar  incident  in  the  life  of  Elisha. 
"When  the  bereaved  mother  told  the  prophet  that  her 
son  was  dead,  Elisha  gave  his  staff  to  his  servant  and 


DISEASE-KXFELLING    VIRTUE.  131 

Lade  liiiii  lay  it  ontlic  Ixxly  of  tliccliild.  Tlic  sci-xant 
came  back  ami  reported  tliat  tlic  cliild's  liiV  liad  not 
retnriKMl.  Tlu'  ])r()p]iet  hiuiscll'  tlicn  went  to  tin- 
clianiber  of  death,  and,  like  his  master,  laid  himself 
npon  the  corpse  and  prayed,  and  thus  brought  back 
the  child's  life.  A  still  more  extraordinary  instance 
of  the  same  kind  is  the  restoration  of  a  dead  body 
to  life  through  accidental  contact  with  tln^  Ijurit.-d 
corpse  of  Elislia,  as  related  in  2  Kings  xiii.  21.  So  in 
the  New  Testament  we  read  that  the  sick  were  lai«l 
in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  in  order  that  they  might 
be  cured  by  contact  with  the  passing  shadow  of 
Peter.  It  is  also  recorded  that  cures  were  wrought 
by  contact  with  aprons  and  handkerchiefs  that  had 
touched  the  body  of  St.  Paul. 

It  seems  then  that  the  human  body  in  a  condition 
of  transcendent  sanctity  has  within  it  a  disease- 
expelling  virtue.  But  in  human  beings  this  virtue 
is  exceptional  and  deriv^ative,  whereas  in  our  Lord's 
body  the  virtue  was  original  and  normal;  a  fact 
which  constitutes  a  very  real  difference  between  His 
body  and  all  other  human  bodies.  Then,  again,  con- 
sider His  body  after,  and  even  before.  His  Resurrec- 
tion. Before  His  death  He  emancipated  Himself 
occiisionally  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  material 
world,  and  passed  suddenly   into  the  domain  of  the 


132  OUR  LORD'S  BODY 

spiritual.     When  the   people  of  Nazareth,  whom  He 

had  offended  by  His  preaching,  attempted  to  throw 

Him   down   headlong  from  the  hill  on  which  their 

town  was  built,  we  read  that  He  "  hid  Himself,"  and 

so  passed  through  the  midst    of    them;    that   is   to 

say,  He  made  Himself  invisible.     In  like  manner  He 

walked  on  the  sea  contrary  to  the  force  of  gravity  ; 

and  on  one  occasion  He  seems  to  have  dispensed  with 

the  ordinary  process  of  locomotion,  for  we  read  that 

on  stilling  a  storm  that  had  frightened  His  disciples 

on   the   lake  they  found  themselves  immediately  at 

the  place   for   which   they   were   bound,   apparently 

without    traversing    the    distance    in    the    ordinary 

way.     His  rule,  however,  before  His  Death,  was  to 

submit    to    the    ordinary    conditions    of    humanity. 

After   His    Resurrection    He   retired  definitely   into 

the  spiritual  realm,  and  came  back  into  the  sphere 

of   matter   on   special    occasions    only,   and   then   in 

a  state  of   bodily  independence   of  what  are  called 

the  laws  of  Nature.      He  passed  on  Easter  morning 

through  the   stone  which  closed    His  tomb,  for  the 

stone   was    not   rolled   away    to   let    Him    out — He 

had   risen   already — but  to    let  the  women  in.     On 

several     occasions     He     appeared    and    disappeared 

suddenly,  entering  and   passing   out   through   closed 

doors ;   so  that  material  obstacles   could   not  bar  or 


ALWAYS  A   Srj RITUAL   JWDV.  133 

impede  His  movenient.s.  Clearly  then  our  Lords 
humanity  was  difierent  in  several  important  aspects 
from  ours.  J  hit  it  was  pei-fect  humanity  for  alJ 
that ;  more  perfect  in  fact  than  ours.  Indeed  oui- 
own  bodies  after  the  Resurrection  will  differ  \(ivy 
widely  from  our  present  bodies ;  yet  they  will  remain 
essentially  the  same  bodies.  Their  normal  condition 
now  is  to  be  under  the  dominion  of  the  laws  of 
Nature.  Their  normal  condition  then  will  be  subjec- 
tion to  the  laws  of  spirit,  which  means  emancipa- 
tion from  the  laws  of  matter.  As  I  have  previously 
pointed  out,  the  perfection  of  human  nature  seems 
to  demand  the  inclusion  in  one  personality  of  the 
characteristic  excellences  of  both  sexes,  the  separation 
l)elonging  appai*ently  to  this  temporal  dispensation 
only.  The  first  man  as  we  read  his  history  in  the 
Bible,  seems  to  have  been  created  with  a  nature  which 
embraced  potentially  the  attributes  of  both  sexes.  Qui- 
Lord,  the  Second  Adam,  also  possessed  the  character- 
istic excellences  of  both  sexes  in  perfection.  So  that 
so  far  from  being  a  nature  less  perfect  than  ours,  Ilif. 
human  nature  is  far  more  pc>rfect,  and  therefore  far 
more  sensitive  and  sympathetic.  The  purer  the 
nature,  the  more  exquisite  is  its  sensitiveness,  the 
more  responsive  its  sympathy. 

Another  proof  that  our  Lord's  humanity  was  more 


134  H^   ^^^   ^O  SPECIAL   CHARACTER. 

perfect  than  ours  is  the  absence  in  Him  of  what  we 
call  character.  All  men  and  women  have  some 
special  characteristic ;  one  is  brave,  another  humble, 
another  patient,  and  so  forth.  Moses  was  the  meekest 
of  men,  Solomon  the  wisest,  Job  the  most  patient. 
What  does  that  mean  ?  It  means  that  those  qualities 
predominated  over  the  rest  of  the  character  in  their 
respective  possessors.  But  the  predominance  of  any 
special  quality  is  a  mark  of  imperfection.  The  per- 
fection of  man's  constitution  is  to  ha\e  its  qualities  in 
equipoise ;  each  in  its  proper  place ;  each  coming  to 
the  front  when  required ;  but  none  overshadowing 
the  rest.  Read  the  history  of  Christ  as  you  find  it  in 
the  Gospels,  and  you  will  see  that  one  of  the  most 
wonderful  things  about  it  is  the  absence  of  any 
special  characteristic.  All  His  intellectual  and  moral 
faculties  are  in  perfect  equilibrium.  Each  was  in  its 
proper  place,  each  asserted  itself  when  necessary, 
just  to  the  extent  required,  and  not  a  jot  beyond. 
He  was  the  bravest  of  men  when  bravery  was 
required ;  the  meekest  when  meekness  was  needed ; 
the  most  indio-nant  when  the  occasion  demanded 
indignation ;  the  most  merciful  where  mercy  was 
deserved.  But  there  Avas  no  special  quality  whicli 
distinguished  Him ;  no  particular  attribute  which 
dominated  the  rest  of  His  human  nature.     Another 


SIGXIFICAXCE    OF  "  SOX  OF  MAX."  135 

tlilu'.;-  Worthy  oi'  notice;  is  the  tith',  "Son  ot  Man," 
whicli  our  Lor<l  so  constantly  applies  to  Himself. 
II"'  never  claimed  to  be  the  son  of  a  man  :  H(^  owne^l 
no  filial  relationship  to  any  human  father;  on  tho 
contrary,  He  disclaimed  such  relationship.  When  His 
motlier  said,  "Thy  father  and  I  have  sought  Theo 
sorrowing,"  He  corrected  her  innncdiately  with  th(^ 
significant  question  :  "  How  is  it  that  ye  sought  Me  ? 
Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  My  Father's 
Itusiness?"  A  clear  intimation  that  Joseph  was  not 
His  father.  And  therefore  in  calling  Himself  the 
'Son  of  ^lan"  He  indicated  that  the  nature  wliieh 
Ife  took  from  the  Virgin  was  generic,  not  particulai* ; 
the  nature  of  the  race,  not  of  any  individual  member 
of  it.  The  title  thus  denotes  a  relation  with  humanity 
which  is  at  once  universal  and  personal.  The  nature 
Ife  took  is  coextensive  with  the  race;  and  that 
nature  is  united  to,  without  being  absorbed  into,  His 
J)ivine  Person.  And  see  how  He  uses  that  glorious 
title  of  "Son  of  Man"  to  accentuate  the  strange 
contrast  of  the  life  of  man  on  earth  with  every  other 
I'orm  of  life  in  the  world  of  Xature.  "  Tiie  foxes  liave 
iiolcs,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests;  but  the 
Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  His  head."  Tlw^ 
lower  animals  find  their  liomes  here — homes  suited 
to  their  natures  and  adapted  to  their  requirements; 


136  RENAN'S  ADMISSION. 

but  "the  Son  of  Man,"  the  God-Man,  the  Representative 
of  universal  humanity,  "hath  not  where  to  lay  His 
head."  This  world  is  not  man's  home.  It  offers  him 
no  resting-place.  It  leaves  him  ever  unsatisfied, 
promising  well,  but  never  fulfilling.  And  as  the 
title  of  "  Son  of  Man  "  implies  that  it  was  the  seed 
of  the  race  which  He  took,  this  fact  is  emphasized 
in  another  place  where  it  is  said  that  He  was  "  made 
of  a  woman,"  excluding  by  implication  any  human 
paternity.  Our  Lord  then  emphatically  claims  to  be 
in  a  unique  sense  at  once  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son 
of  Man :  a  circumstance  which  arrested  the  keen  eye 
of  a  French  writer,  whose  remarkable  testimony  I 
will  quote — remarkable  because  he  is  an  unbeliever  in 
Christianity ;  I  mean  the  well-known  author,  Renan. 
His  words  are :  "  It  is  probable  that  from  the  first 
He  regarded  His  relationship  with  God  as  that  of  a 
son  towards  his  father.  This  was  his  great  act  of 
originality ;  in  this  He  had  nothing  in  common  with 
His  race." 

And  now  I  am  going  to  make  a  remark  which  may 
startle  some  of  you.  It  is  this :  If  our  Lord  was 
not  more  than  man.  He  was  less  than  a  good  man. 
Either  He  was  God,  or  He  must  cease  to  be  our 
Pattern  Man,  the  great  Exemplar  of  our  race.  My 
reason  for  saying  this  is   that  Jesus  makes  claims 


CHRIST  AXD   OTHER    TEACHERS.  137 

^vllich  would  liavc  been  arrogant  and  blasphemous  as 
cominor  from  a  mere  maTi.  Read  the  lives  of  the 
great  teachers  ol*  mankind  as  they  emeri^^e  upon  the 
page  of  history  :  Gautama,  for  example,  the  founder 
of  Buddhism,  and  Socrates,  the  great  moral  teachei- 
and  philosopher  of  Greece.  Neither  of  them  makes 
any  claim  to  sinlessness  or  moral  perfection.  On  the 
contrary,  they  bewail  their  ignorance,  their  sinfulness, 
their  manifold  inperfections.  Of  all  the  great  moral 
teachers  of  the  ancient  world  outside  the  Bible  the 
founder  of  Buddhism  comes  in  some  aspects  of  his 
character  nearest  to  the  impression  left  upon  our 
minds  Ly  the  study  of  the  life  of  Christ.  But 
Gautama  liad  revelled  in  gross  sensuality  during  the 
earlier  part  of  his  life ;  and  it  was  after  a  surfeit  of 
self-indulirence  that  he  turned  over  a  new  leaf  and 
became  an  ascetic  and  a  great  preacher  of  self-denial 
and  righteousness.  He  frequently  proclaims  and 
bewails  his  own  sinfulness,  and  seeks  salvation  for 
himself  as  well  as  for  others.  The  figure  of  Socrates, 
too,  grandly  as  it  stands  out  amidst  the  seething 
moral  corruption  of  the  most  brilliant  period  intellec- 
tually of  Athenian  history,  was  by  no  means  faultless. 
Nor  does  he  claim  any  distinction  above  his  contem- 
poraries, except  that  he  knew  his  own  ignorance 
while  they  were  ignorant  of  theirs,  and  that  he  was 


138  HIS  SELF-ASSERTION 

always  obedient  to  a  mysterious  voice  which  warned 
him  on  critical  occasions.  He  makes  frequent  con- 
fession of  transgressions  against  the  moral  law,  and 
keeps  himself  always  on  a  level  with  other  men. 
What  is  true  of  Gautama  and  Socrates  is  true  of  all 
other  great  teachers,  Pagan,  Jewish,  or  Christian. 
They  acknowledge  their  kinship  with  other  men  not 
only  in  race,  but  in  the  moral  imperfections  which 
characterize  the  race,  and  in  the  need  of  salvation 
from  a  source  higher  than  man.  Not  so  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  He  claims  an  unique  distinction,  an 
unapproachable  superiority  over  every  other  member 
of  the  human  family.  His  teaching  abounds  in  lofty 
self-assertions  which  are  utterly  incompatible  with 
His  being  simply  an  ordinary  man ;  and  never  once 
does  He  suggest  that  Himself  needs  redemption. 
Let  us  take  a  few  instances : — ''  Ye  judge  after  the 
flesh;  I  judge  no  man.  And  yet  if  I  judge,  My 
judgment  is  true ;  for  I  am  not  alone,  but  I  and  the 
Father  that  sent  ]\Ie." — "  I  am  one  that  bear  witness 
of  Myself,  and  the  Father  that  sent  Me  beareth 
Avitness  of  Me." — "  Then  said  they  unto  Him,  Who 
art  Thou  ?  And  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Even  the 
same  that  I  said  unto  you  from  the  beginning." — 
"  Jesus  said  unto  them.  If  God  were  your  Father,  ye 
would  love  Me ;  for  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from 


IMPIJKS  Ills  DIVIMIY.  139 

Uod;  noitlicr  camo  I  of  Myself,  but  Ho  sent  Mc."— - 
'•  Whicli  of  you  convincctli  Mc  of  sin  ?  And  if  I  say 
the  trutli,  why  do  yc  not  believe  Me?"  There,  you 
see,  He  challenges  conviction  of  sinfulness— so  different 
from  all  other  human  teacliers.  Again,  in  the  same 
chapter  He  says,  "Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to 
see  My  day  :  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.  Then  said 
tlie  Jews  unto  Him,  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old, 
and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ?  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
A'erily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was,  I 
am."  The  expression  "  I  am "  is  remarkable  and 
significant ;  it  means  Jehovah,  the  great  Name  which 
( lod  liad  revealed  as  His  peculiar  designation  to  Moses 
on  Mount  Horeb.  Here  Jesus  asserts  His  right  to 
appropriate  it.  He  does  not  say,  "Before  Abraham 
was,  I  was,"  but  "I  am,"  that  is,  "I  am  the  self- 
existent  One,  independent  of  time,  with  Whom  is  no 
past  or  future,  but  one  vast  present."  Again,  in  the 
tentli  chapter  of  St.  John,  He  says,  "My  sheep  hear 
My  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  ^le. 
And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out 
of  My  hand.  My  Father,  which  gave  them  Me,  is 
greater  than  all ;  and  no  man  is  able  to  pluck  them 
out  of  My  Father's  hand.  I  and  ^ly  Father  arc  one." 
These  are  as.scrtiuns   whioli  no  mere  man,  who  was 


I40  CHRIST  IS  OUR  EXAMPLE, 

also  a  good  man,  would  dream  of  making.  It  follows 
that  those  who  deny  our  Lord's  Divinity,  and  yet  set 
Him  forth  as  the  best  specimen  of  our  race  and  a 
model  worthy  of  being  copied  to  the  end  of  time,  are 
in  an  inextricable  dilemma.  For  if  He  is  not  God 
there  is  a  deadly  flaw  in  His  character.  Admit  His 
Hivinity,  on  the  other  hand,  and  you  will  find  His 
life  and  teaching  harmonious  and  flawless. 

But  if  our  Lord's  humanity  was  so  exceptionally 
perfect — a  humanity,  moreover,  united  with  a  Divine 
Person — how  can  He  be  an  example  to  us  ?  And  how 
could  He  have  been  tempted  at  all  in  any  real  sense  ? 
For  remember  that  our  Lord  not  only  did  not  yield  to 
the  temptation  ;  He  could  not  have  yielded.  He  was 
not  only  impeccant,  but  impeccable.  Not  only  Avas 
He  sinless  in  fact,  but  He  could  not  by  any  possibility 
have  committed  sin.  How  then  could  He  have  been 
tempted  ?  You  must  try  to  follow  me  in  what  I  am 
going  to  say  :  otherwise  you  may  carry  away  erroneous 
impressions.  Bear  in  mind  then  that  although  the 
nature  that  was  tempted  was  human,  the  Person  who 
was  tempted  was  God ;  and  God  cannot  sin.  But  in 
that  case  how  could  His  temptation  have  been  real 
and  His  triumph  over  temptation  be  an  example  to 
us  ?  ^     In  order  to  get  over  that  difficulty,  you  must 

^  An  accomplished  friend,  to  wliom  I  Lave  already  owned  my 
indebtedness,  has  made  the  following:  criticism  on  the  explanation 


mo  UGH  HE    WAS  IMPKCCAIU.E.  14T 

nMuomLcr,  in  the  first  place,  that  temptation  covers  a 
wider  sphere  than  sin.     To  be  tempted  is  not  neces- 

lioro  offered  of  our  Lord's  temptation  : — "  Tliis  cxiilanation  docs  not 
seem  to  mo  satisfying.  To  a  person  '  not  only  impcccaiit,  but  im- 
peccable,' there  miglit  have  been  suggestion  of  sin,  but  surely  no 
temptation,  no  trial  or  struggle.  Struggle  comes  in  when  there  is 
jiossibility  of  yielding.  The  rock  makes  no  effort  against  the  stone 
that  has  been  hurled  at  it  but  cannot  injure  it;  and  without  effort, 
struggle,  the  experience  must  bo  imperfect.  Surely  the  temptation 
was  real,  and  •would  have  been  no  temptation  if  there  had  Ijecn  no 
possibility  of  yielding."  I  perceive  the  difficulty,  and  I  venture  to 
suggest  the  following  solution.  Wo  know  that  our  Lord's  human 
nature  in  all  its  jjarts  was  subject  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  develop- 
ment, and  among  them  to  tho  limitations  of  human  knowledge,  in- 
cluding self-knowledge.  Consequently  it  does  not  follow  that  Jesus 
was,  as  man,  absolutely  conscious  beforehand  that  lie  would  not  havo 
given  May  to  tho  temptation.  His  Incarnation  was  a  true  Kevuaiv 
(Phil.  ii.  7)  of  the  attributes  of  the  Divine  Nature.  It  was  as  man  that 
IIo  fought  and  won.  It  is  of  course  true  that  in  virtue  of  tho 
Hypostatic  Union  there  could  bo  no  real  sepamtion  between  the  two 
Natures  ;  but  tho  human  nature  was  left  to  its  own  free  solf-detcr- 
tiiiniug  efforts  towards  moral  perfection.  Wc  read  more  than  once  of 
(jur  Lord's  praying  to  His  Father  ;  also  of  His  human  weakness,  such 
as  His  shrinking  from  death,  and  from  solitudo  when  in  anguish  of 
soul.  There  is  a  pang  of  disappointment  in  the  words,  "What,  could  yo 
not  watch  with  iMo  one  hour  ?"  To  which  may  be  added  that  moment 
of  mysterious  obscuration  on  tho  Cross  when  His  Father  appeared 
I0  havo  forsaken  Uim.  It  was  because  His  knowledge  as  man  was 
human  and  not  divine  that  temptation  was  possible  to  Him,  and  vic- 
tory, and  increase  of  moral  strength.  In  meeting  temptation  t  Ikto  was 
in  His  human  will  room  for  alternatives,  and  He  had  to  make  a  de- 
liberate moral  choice.  Think  of  His  prayer  among  the  olives  of  Geth- 
scmano  :  "  And  He  went  forward  a  little,  and  fell  on  tho  grrnind,  and 
prayed  that,  if  it  were  possible,  the  hour  might  pa.ss  from  Him.  And 
Ho  said,  Abba,  Father,  all  things  are  possible  unto  Thee;  take  away 
this  cup  from  Me:  nevertheless  not  what  I  v.ill,  but  what  Thou  wilt." 


142  CHRIST'S  SINLESSNESS 

sarily  to  sin.  An  act  of  sin  comprises  three  distinct 
stages.  First,  the  sin  must  be  suggested  to  the  mind 
either  by  a  natural  impulse  or  by  some  external 
tempter.  In  the  second  place,  the  person  tempted 
must  take  a  pleasure  in  the  sin ;  he  must,  so  to  speak, 
walk  round  it  and  contemplate  it,  and  give  it  a  lodging. 
In  the  third  place,  he  consummates  the  anticipated 
pleasure  in  the  self-indulgent  act.  In  the  mere  sug- 
gestion of   temptation   to   the  mind  there  is  no  sin. 

Who  can  fail  to  see  here  a  real  temptation,  a  real  struggle,  and  a  real 
victory?  Uncertain  which  way  the  Divine  will  might  lead,  instinc- 
tively clinging  to  the  Divine  gift  of  life  and  shrinking  with  horror 
from  the  inexperienced  crisis  of  death,  there  was  I'oom  for  solicitation 
to  Him  with  Whom  all  things  were  possible.  But  the  Father  gave  no 
sign  of  release,  and  the  Son  of  Man  went  steadily  forward  to  meet  His 
doom.  There  was  room  for  resistance  and  decision  when  no  gleam  of 
light  came  to  show  that  the  dark  road  might  be  shunned.  It  was  this 
liability  to  inward  balancing  of  alternatives,  and  the  conscious  need  of 
strength  to  fulfil  His  mission,  that  made  the  prayers  of  Jesus  possible, 
and  so  real  and  persistent.  We  know  that  His  choice  must  always  in 
the  end  have  been  the  right  choice.  It  does  not  follow  that  it  was  in 
every  case  clear  to  Him  at  the  moment  what  the  right  choice  was, 
further  than  the  determination  in  the  last  resort  to  subdue  the  prompt- 
ings of  the  human  will  to  the  decrees  of  the  Divine.  We  must  be  very 
careful  that,  while  we  insist  on  the  reality  of  our  Lord's  Divinity,  we 
do  not  encroach  on  the  integrity  of  His  Humanity,  of  which  moral 
perfection  through  free  choice  and  self-determined  effort  is  a  neces- 
sary  predicate.  His  two  natures,  though  inseparable,  are  distinct, 
and  neither  must  be  thought  of  as  infringing  any  of  the  prerogatives 
of  the  other. 

I  have  considerably  altered  the  passage  in  the  text  to  meet  my 
friend's  objection.  But  I  leave  the  objection,  to  enable  nie  to  explain 
my  meaning  more  fully  in  a  note. 


COMPATIBLE    WITH  TEMrTATIOX.  143 

TIr'IV  is  no  sill  in  lirin^  tciiiptcMl;  1)ut  tlic  inoincnt 
you  begin  to  tiikc  pleasure  in  sin,  the  nioineiit  you 
l-ivi'  an  evil  .suircfestion,  knowinf^  it  to  be  evil,  a  lodmnir 
in  tlie  mind,  that  moment  sin  enters;  and  its  consum- 
anation  in  act  is  pretty  certain  to  follow  speedily.  ^\\ 
K)ur  Lord's  case  only  the  first  could  take  place  ;  sin 
<}0uld  be  suggested  to  His  mind.  Now,  witli  regard 
to  the  triple  temptation  recorded  in  tlie  Gospels — a 
temptation  addressed  to  the  three  avenues  of  man's 
nature — body,  soul,  and  spirit ;  in  other  words,  sensual, 
moral,  and  intellectual — it  is  to  be  observed  that  there 
was  nothing  wrong  in  the  appeal  which  the  Tempter 
made  to  the  natural  craving  of  our  Lord's  tripartite 
humanity.  Our  Lord  was  hungry  after  His  long  fast, 
and  felt  the  ordinary  pangs  of  hunger  and  the  natural 
<.lesire  for  food ;  and  there  was  no  sin  in  seekino:  to 
gratify  His  appetite.  Sin  would  come  in  if  He  enter- 
tained the  idea  of  satisfying  the  craving  for  food  in  an 
illegitimate  way.  He  came  to  set  an  example  of  total 
self-sacrifice.  He  came  to  lay  down,  and  teach,  and 
-exemplify  in  His  own  Person,  the  law  of  entire  un- 
selfishness in  opposition  to  the  law  of  self-will  and 
.self-indulgence,  which  followed  from  the  fall  of  Adam 
To  satisfy  His  hunger  would  have  been  lawful  if  there 
lunl  been  food  at  hand.  But  to  have  turned  stones 
into  bread  would  have  been  unlawful  for  two  reasons. 


144  TEMPTATION   REAL, 

First,  because  it  would  have  been  a  violation  of  natural 
order,  which  our  Lord's  miracles  never  were.  When 
He  multiplied  loaves  or  fishes,  or  turned  water  into 
wine.  He  was  acting  on  the  lines  of  His  ordinary 
Providence,  and  simply  dispensing  with  intermediate 
processes.  He  multiplies  bread  and  fishes  every  year 
through  secondary  agencies,  and  every  year  He  turns 
water  into  the  raw  material  of  wine  by  the  secret 
chemistry  of  nature.  But  to  have  turned  stones  into 
bread  would  have  been  a  wanton  violation  of  the 
order  which  He  has  established  in  the  world.  In  the 
next  place,  Christ  never  worked  any  miracle  on  His 
own  behalf  except  when  He  saved  the  people  of 
Nazareth  from  the  crime  of  putting  Him  to  a  violent 
death  before  His  hour  was  come.  He  lavished  His- 
miraculous  power  on  others :  He  never  used  it  to  save 
Himself  trouble  or  pain.  The  Tempter's  suggestion 
was  thus  an  invitation  to  violate  His  own  order  in  the 
world  of  Xature,  and  to  do  this  in  opposition  to  the 
law  of  self-renunciation  which  He  taught  and  practised. 
Had  He  yielded.  He  Avould  have  made  the  Kingdom  of 
the  Messiah  a  carnal  and  self-seeking  dominion,  and 
would  have  proclaimed  to  the  world  that  man's  life 
consists  in  the  gratification  of  his  animal  appetites. 
In  opposition  to  this  suggested  rule  of  life  He  ap- 
pealed to  the  supernatural  life  of  the  Israelites  in  the 


THOUGH   VICTORY  CERTAIN.  145 

wilderness,  wlicre  they  were  sustained  by  the  direct 
bounty  of  God ;  the  very  clothes  tliey  wore  bein^ 
exempted  from  the  ordinary  law  of  decay.  But  there 
was  nothing  wrong  in  feeling  the  pangs  of  hunger 
and  wishing  to  appease  them.  And  so  as  regards  the 
other  two  temptations,  at  which  I  can  only  glance 
rapidly  for  lack  of  time.  There  was  nothing  wrong 
in  the  suggestion  that  our  Lord  should  take  possession 
of  the  kingdoms  of  the  world.  That  was  His  heart's 
desire.  He  came  on  earth  to  bring  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world  under  His  righteous  rule.  The  desire 
wixs  natural  and  praiseworthy.  The  sin  would 
have  been  in  gratifying  it  prematurely,  and  by  an 
act  of  homage  to  the  devil.  Nor  would  it  have  been 
sinful  to  fly  to  the  ground  from  the  pinnacle  of 
the  Temple  for  a  legitimate  purpose.  But  to  have 
done  so  by  way  of  theatrical  display  in  proof  of  His 
Messiahship  would  have  been  a  sin.  In  all  the 
temptations  you  will  observe  the  ends  which  the 
tempter  proposed  were  good  and  desirable ;  it  Wiis 
the  means  which  he  suggested  that  were  sinful.  Nor 
was  there  any  sin  involved  in  the  mere  temptation — 
the  mere  suggestion  of  an  end  in  itself  desirable.  The 
temptation  glanced  off"  our  Lord's  pure  soul  without 
leaving  a  stain. 

But  how  then  can  He  be  an  example  to  us  when  we 

L 


146  BUT  VICTORY  NOT  NECESSARILY 

are  tempted  ?  Let  me  try  to  explain  it.  Our  Lord 
desired  intensely  the  ends  proposed  by  the  Tempter — 
they  were  good  ends ;  and  the  delay,  for  example,  in 
bringing  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  under  His  sway 
was  a  real  grief  to  Him.  He  would  gladly  have 
abridged  the  time  if  that  could  have  been  done  in 
accordance  with  Divine  laws  and  purposes.  But  I  have 
said  that  our  Lord  could  not  have  sinned ;  and  that 
seems  to  make  His  temptation  unreal.  But  does  it  ? 
Think  for  a  moment.  You  have  a  friend,  a  man  whom 
you  know  well,  in  whose  honour  and  integrity  you 
have  perfect  confidence.  Your  friend  unexpectedly 
finds  himself  in  a  great  difficulty.  Various  alternatives 
present  themselves  to  his  mind,  and  he  undergoes  a 
painful  struggle.  But  you  feel  absolutely  certain  that 
when  the  path  of  duty  is  made  quite  plain  to  him  he 
will  follow  it.  Yet  the  temptation  has  been  a  very 
real  one,  and  while  the  crisis  was  upon  him  your  friend 
himself  was  probably  uncertain  what  his  choice  would 
be.  Or  you  have  heard,  known,  or  read  of  pure  women 
who  have  been  placed  in  a  cruel  dilemma ;  the  sacrifice 
of  honour,  or  of  the  life  of  husband  or  child  by 
violence  or  starvation.  Again  the  temptation  is  sore 
though  the  sin  be  hateful.  There  may  be  for  a  while 
a  conflict  between  what  natural  or  conjugal  affection 
may  disguise  in  the  garb  of  opposing  duties.     Shall 


KNOWN  TO    THE    TEMPTED.  147 

she  sacrifice  her  honour  to  save  a  life  dearer  to  her 
than  her  own  ?  Or  shall  she  sacrifice  that  life  to  save 
lier  honour  ?  On  reflection  she  prays  the  prayer  of 
Gethsemane — "  Not  what  I  will,  but  what  Thou  wilt." 
She  must  not  do  evil  that  good  may  come.  Death  is 
not  necessarily  an  evil  at  all — it  may  be  a  good  ;  but 
voluntarily  to  violate,  on  any  plea,  the  law  of  chastity 
must  always  be  a  sin.  Here,  too,  the  temptation  was 
real,  though  to  a  higher  intelligence  the  issue  may  not 
have  been  for  a  moment  doubtful.  Of  course  we  could 
not  demonstrate  with  absolute  certainty  of  any  human 
being  beforehand  that  he  or  she  would  not  yield  to 
any  particular  temptation,  however  certain  we  might 
feel  morally.  But  we  might  be  able  to  do  so  if  we 
could  see  into  the  inmost  recesses  of  character,  as 
possibly  intelligences  of  a  higher  order  than  ours  are 
able  to  do.  In  like  manner,  angels  probably  knew 
then,  as  we  know  now,  that  Jesus  must  in  the  end 
have  triumphed  over  every  temptation.  But  it  is  not 
necessary  to  believe  that  the  issue  was  always  equally 
clear  to  His  own  human  soul  in  every  stage  of  the 
conflict.  He  "emptied  Himself"  of  His  Divine  power 
when  He  became  man;  that  is,  He  withdrew  His 
human  nature  from  the  shield  of  the  Divine  Perso- 
nality, and  fought  temptation  in  all  its  forms  as  Man  ; 
just  as  He  learnt  to  walk,  and  read,  and  write,  like 


148  MORAL  DISCIPLINE  OF  CHRIST. 

any  other   child,  without  any  aid  from   His  Divine 
nature.     In  truth,  the  moral  development  of  all  finite 
natures  arrives  at  last  at  a  point  where  temptation 
ceases   to   have   any   power.     The   angels  who   kept 
their  first  state  have  their  wills  so  set  on  the  right 
side  that  they  can  no  longer  sin.     So,  too,  will  it  be 
with  men  who  have  passed  successfully  through  their 
moral  probation.     The  same  law,  indeed,  prevails  in 
all  organic  growths ;  the  life  reaches  at  last  a  point 
when  it  takes  a  set  which  cannot  be  changed.     That 
our  Lord's  temptations  were  intensely  real,  more  real 
and  searching  than  any  temptation  before  or  since, 
there  can  be  no  question — and  Holy  Scripture  bears 
emphatic  testimony  to  the  fact.    "  The  Captain  of  our 
salvation  "  is  said  to  have  been  made  "  perfect  through 
suffering."     And   in   the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we 
read  :  "  For  we  have  not  a  high  priest  which  cannot  be 
touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities ;  but  was  in 
all  things  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin." 
Again :  "  Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behoved  Him  to 
be  made  like  unto  His  brethren,  that  He  might  be  a 
merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest  in  things  pertaining 
to  God,  to   make  reconciliation   for   the  sins  of   the 
people.     For  in  that  He  Himself  hath  suffered  being 
tempted,  He  is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted." 
Not  only  was  He  tempted,  you  see,  but  His  tempta- 


WHAT  *'  TJIEO TOKOS''  CONNOTES.  149 

tion  was  a  sore  trial  to  Him,  inflictinfr  keen  sufferine:, 
but  disciplining  and  developing  His  moral  nature  in 
the  process. 

Now  let  me  try  to  sum  up  in  a  few  words  what  is 
actually  involved  in  the  union  of  the  Divine  and 
human  natures  in  our  Lord's  single  Person.  In  virtue 
of  that  union,  called  in  theological  language  the 
Hypostatic  Union,  it  is  allowable  to  predicate  of 
Christ's  Person  in  the  abstract  the  properties  whicli 
belonor  in  the  concrete  to  either  of  His  natures.  Let 
us  take  some  illustrations.  I  may  possibly  shock 
some  of  you  by  saying  that  the  Virgin  Mary  may 
properly  be  called  "  Mother  of  God ; "  yet  that  is  the 
title  given  her  by  the  OEcumenical  Council  of  Ephesus 
— one  of  the  Councils  accepted  by  the  Church  of 
Enerland.  You  must  understand  the  term  with  its 
proper  theological  limitations.  Of  course  it  would  be 
monstrous  and  blasphemous  to  assert  that  the  Blessed 
Virgin  was  the  mother  of  our  Lord's  Godhead.  Never- 
theless she  may  properly  be  called  Mother  of  God 
because  she  is  mother  of  that  Single  Person  Who  was 
in  His  human  nature  born  of  her;  and  to  deny  her 
that  title,  as  Nestorius  did,  is  in  fact  to  deny  that  the 
child  born  of  her  was  God.  In  tlie  same  sense  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  "  the  Church  of  God  which  He 
purchased  with  His  blood  " — that  is,  the  blood  of  God. 


ISO  HOOKER  ON  THE  DOCTRINE 

And  the  mother  o£  John  the  Baptist  calls  the  Virgin 
"  the  mother  of  my  Lord."  We  may  therefore  apply 
to  Christ's  Person  all  the  acts  and  attributes  which 
severally  belong  to  either  of  His  natures.  We  may 
say  that  God  was  laid  in  a  manger,  was  weary  at  the 
well  of  Jacob,  died  on  the  Cross,  was  buried  in  Joseph 
of  Arimathea's  tomb ;  meaning  of  course  that  Christ, 
Who  is  both  God  and  Man,  underwent  all  this.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  may  say  that  Man  overcame 
death,  saved  mankind,  and  reigns  in  heaven ;  meaning 
the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  Who  did  all  this  in  His  Divine 
Personality ;  just  as  He  once  spoke  of  Himself  while 
still  on  earth  as  "  the  Son  of  Man  Who  is  in  Heaven." 
I  will  conclude  with  a  quotation  from  Richard 
Hooker,^  "  the  judicious  Hooker,"  as  he  has  been 
called,  to  show  you  that  the  doctrine  which  I  have 
been  teaching  you  is  true  Church  of  England 
doctrine :  —  "  But  that  the  selfsame  Person  Which 
verily  is  man  should  properly  be  God  also,  and  that 
by  reason  not  of  two  persons  linked  in  amity,  but  of 
two  natures,  human  and  Divine  conjoined  in  one  and 
the  same  Person,  the  God  of  Glory  may  be  said  as 
well  to  have  suffered  death,  as  to  have  raised  the  dead 
from  their  graves ;  the  Son  of  Man  as  well  to  have 
made  as  redeemed  the  world, — Nestorius  in  no  case 

•  Ecd.  Pol,  Bk.  v.,  lii. 


OF  THE   INCARNATION.  151 

would  admit.  Tliat  which  deceived  him  was  want 
of  heed  to  the  first  beginning  of  that  admirable 
combination  of  God  with  man.  'The  Word  (saith 
St.  John)  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  in  us.*  The 
cvano-elist  useth  the  plural  number,  men  for  manhood, 
us  for  the  nature  whereof  we  consist,  even  as  the 
Apostle,  denying  the  assumption  of  angelic  nature, 
saith  likewise  in  the  plural  number  He  took  not 
angels  but  the  seed  of  Abraham.  It  pleased  not  the 
Word  or  Wisdom  of  God  to  take  to  itself  some  one 
person  amongst  men,  for  then  should  that  one  have 
been  advanced,  which  was  assumed,  and  no  more  ; 
but  Wisdom  to  the  end  she  might  save  many,  built 
her  house  of  that  nature  which  is  common  unto  all ; 
she  made  not  this  or  that  man  her  habitation,  but 
dwelt  in  us.  The  seeds  of  herbs  and  plants  at  the 
first  are  not  in  act,  but  in  possibility,  that  which  they 
afterwards  grow  to  be.  If  the  Son  of  God  had  taken 
to  Himself  a  man  now  made  and  already  perfected,  it 
would  of  necessity  follow  that  there  are  in  Christ  two 
Persons,  the  one  assuming,  and  the  other  assumed ; 
whereas  the  Son  of  God  did  not  assume  a  man's 
person  into  His  own,  but  man's  nature  to  His  own 
Person ;  and  therefore  took  semen,  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, the  very  first  original  element  of  our  nature, 
before   it   was   come    to   have   any    personal   human 


152  ''  COMMUNICATIO  IDIOMATUMr 

subsistence.  The  flesh  and  the  conjunction  of  the 
flesh  with  God  began  both  at  one  instant;  His 
making  and  taking  to  Himself  our  flesh  was  but  one 
act,  so  that  in  Christ  there  is  no  personal  subsistence 
but  one,  and  that  from  everlasting.  By  taking  only 
the  nature  of  man,  He  still  continueth  one  Person, 
and  changeth  but  the  manner  of  His  subsisting, 
which  was  before  in  the  mere  glory  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  is  now  in  the  habit  of  our  flesh.  Foras- 
much, therefore,  as  Christ  hath  no  personal  subsistence 
but  one,  whereby  we  acknowledge  Him  to  have  been 
eternally  the  Son  of  God,  we  must  of  necessity  apply 
to  the  Person  of  the  Son  of  God  even  that  which  is 
spoken  of  Christ  according  to  His  human  nature. 
For  example,  according  to  the  flesh  He  was  born  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  baptized  of  John  in  the  river 
Jordan,  by  Pilate  adjudged  to  die,  and  executed  by 
the  Jews.  We  cannot  say  properly  that  the  Virgin 
bore,  or  John  did  baptize,  or  Pilate  condemn,  or  the 
Jews  crucify,  the  nature  of  man,  because  these  all  are 
personal  attributes ;  His  Person  is  the  subject  which 
receiveth  them.  His  nature  that  which  maketh  His 
Person  capable  or  apt  to  receive.  .  .  Whereupon  it 
foUoweth  against  Nestorius  that  no  person  was  born 
of  the  Virgin  but  the  Son  of  God,  no  person  but  the 
Son  of  God  baptized,  the  Son  of  God  condemned,  the 
Son  of  God  and  no  other  person  crucified." 


VIII. 

"And  was  crucified  also  for  us  under  Pon- 
tius Pilate;  He  suffered  and  was  buried." 

the  atonement. 

The  article  with  which  I  am  to  deal  to-day  is  that 
which  describes  our  Lord's  Passion,  Death,  and 
Burial.  It  is  the  part  of  the  creed  whicli  deals 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  Now  what 
do  we  mean  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  ? 
Various  views  have  been-  put  forward  on  this 
subject,  but  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to-day  to 
discuss  more  than  two  of  these.  One  view  repre- 
sents the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  somewhat  as 
follows :— That  when  man  fell  he  brought  complete 
ruin  on  his  race;  that  human  nature  was  entirely 
and  absolutely  vitiated  by  the  Fall ;  that  it  was  not 
merely  disorganized — its  bond  of  unity  being  broken 
by  the  severance  of  the  human  will  from  the  Divine 
—but  that  it  became  wholly  and  absolutely  evil,  not 
a  single  element  of  good  being  left  in  it.  And  not 
only  so,  but,  in  addition,  all   men  became  criminals 


154  FALSE    VIEWS  REGARDING 

through  Adam's  guilt,  and  the  successive  generations 
who  are  thus  born  into  the  world  are  justly  liable 
to  an  immortality  of  torture ;  all  except  a  compara- 
tively small  number  who  have  been  predestinated  to 
eternal  happiness,  and  for  whom  alone  Jesus  Christ 
made  atonement.  This  doctrine,  moreover,  represents 
God  the  Father  as  a  Being  whose  majesty  was  so 
offended  by  Adam's  sin  that  nothing  would  appease 
Him  but  the  death  of  His  own  innocent  Son.  A 
ransom  had  to  be  paid  of  a  value  beyond  anything 
that  man  could  offer,  and  the  Eternal  Son  accordingly 
offered  Himself  to  His  offended  Father  as  a  substitute 
for  guilty  man;  and  for  His  sake,  thus  dying  in 
man's  stead,  God  was  satisfied,  and  an  atonement 
was  made  for  the  elect. 

Surely  this  is  a  doctrine  very  derogatory  to  the 
nature  of  Almighty  God.  It  represents  human  nature 
as  wholly  and  completely  evil  in  consequence  of 
Adam's  fall.  But  that  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bible,  which  represents  the  Divine  Image  in  fallen  man 
as  marred,  but  not  entirely  effaced.  St.  Paul  says 
that  "  we  have  all  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory 
of  God ; "  come  short,  you  see,  not  entirely  lost.  Had 
man's  nature  become  wholly  sinful,  God  the  Son  could 
not  have  become  incarnate ;  He  could  not  have  taken 
a  sinful  nature  into  union  with  His  Divine  Person. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  155 

Next,  the  doctrine  on  whicli  I  am  commenting 
implies  a  difference  of  moral  character  in  the  Trinity. 
God  the  Father  is  represented  as  so  offended  with 
the  human  race  that  He  could  only  be  reconciled  by 
the  voluntary  sacrifice  of  His  Son :  as  if  the  Father 
and  Son  had  contrary  feelings  towards  mankind  :  the 
Father,  a  severe  Sovereign  Who  would  not  forgive 
without  a  ransom  ;  the  Son,  a  compassionate  Saviour 
Who  offered  His  life  to  redeem  humanity.  The 
Father  would  thus  be  less  loving  than  the  Son, 
which  of  course  is  heresy.  God  the  Father  is, 
moreover,  represented  as  indifferent  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  victim,  provided  only  that  the  pay- 
ment be  equivalent  to  the  debt.  The  innocent  suffered 
for  the  guilty,  and  His  righteousness  is  imputed  to 
sinful  man,  who  is  thus  accounted,  not  made,  riorhteous. 
The  righteousness  which  man  obtains  through  Christ 
does  not  enter  into  the  tissue  of  his  own  being,  does 
not  become  part  of  him,  does  not  circulate  through 
liis  spiritual  veins  as  the  sap  of  a  healthy  tree  cir- 
culates through  the  fibres  of  the  sickly  sprout  which 
is  grafted  upon  it.  It  is  an  external  garment  which 
"  skins  and  films  the  ulcerous  sore,**  leaving  the  putrid 
matter  still  festering  within.  But  what  man  needs  is 
to  have  the  sore  healed,  to  have  the  poison  rooted  out, 
to  have  his  nature  renewed,  to  be  placed    in   com- 


156  THE   TRUE  DOCTRINE. 

munication  with  a  fresh  and  pure  fountain  of  life. 
He  requires  to  be  made,  not  simply  to  be  accounted, 
righteous.  It  is  with  no  mere  imputed  sin  and  guilt 
that  he  comes  into  the  world,  but  with  a  real  heritage 
of  woe — a  will  biased  to  evil,  and  a  conscience  which 
bears  witness  to  ancestral  guilt.  It  is,  therefore,  by 
no  mere  imputed  righteousness  that  he  can  be  saved. 
Christ's  atonement  is  not  a  substitution  for  man's 
righteousness,  but  the  source  of  it,  bringing  him  into 
organic  relation  with  the  redeemed  humanity  of  God 
the  Son,  So  much  then  as  to  that  view  of  the  Atone- 
ment which  regards  human  nature  as  wholly  evil 
and  the  righteousness  of  Christians  as  imputed,  not 
organic;  an  external  endowment,  not  an  internal 
principle  of  sanctity.  I  believe  the  view  which  I 
have  been  criticising  to  be  as  false  as  it  is  certainly 
comparatively  modern. 

What,  then,  is  the  true  view  of  the  Atonement  ?  It 
embraces,  as  I  conceive,  two  ideas :  first,  the  union  of 
the  creation  as  a  whole  with  the  Creator — the  bridging 
of  the  chasm  that  had  divided  the  finite  from  the 
Infinite ;  secondly,  the  reconciliation  of  mankind,  sin- 
ful and  exiled,  to  their  heavenly  '  Father.  Let  us 
glance — for  there  is  no  time  for  more — at  these  two 
ideas  respectively.  Atonement,  as  you  know,  means 
at-one-ment,  bringing  into  harmony  again,  into  unison 


THE    UNITY  OF  NATURE.  157 

and  agreement,  persons  or  parties  who  were  at  vari- 
ance and  apart.  How  does  this  apply  to  the  recon- 
ciliation of  the  Creator  with  His  creation  ?  By  what 
atonement  can  they  be  brought  together  ?  Let  us 
think.  One  of  the  most  striking  facts  revealed  to  us  by 
modern  science  is  the  wonderful  and  mysterious  unity 
which  pervades  the  universe  and  binds  all  its  parts 
to<^ether.  There  is  nothing  isolated.  All  the  forces 
of  Nature  are  correlated.  The  stellar  systems  that 
till  infinite  space  are  bound  together  in  all  their  parts, 
and  are  ceaselessly  acting  upon  and  influencing  each 
other :  planets  revolving  round  their  suns,  satellites 
revolving  round  their  planets,  and  vast  solar  systems, 
with  their  separate  hierarchies  of  planets,  moving  and 
controlling  each  other.  Nor  is  it  only  in  the  inter- 
dependence of  the  huge  masses  of  the  universe  that 
we  find  this  law  of  unity,  this  mutual  action  and  coun- 
teraction, prevailing ;  it  binds  together  the  minutest 
atoms,  regardless  of  distance  and  intervening  obstacles. 
Every  atom  in  the  universe  is  so  closely  connected 
with  every  other  atom,  and  is  so  aflfected  by  it,  that 
we  may  say  there  is  a  kind  of  cognizance  of  each 
otlier,  a  sort  of  mutual  sympathy.  Man  longs  to  be 
independent,  but  it  is  a  vain  dream.  There  is  no 
independence  in  the  universe.  All  its  parts  are 
correlated,  and   the   whole   is   sustained   by   the   re- 


158  ST.   PAUL'S  EXPOS  J  r ION 

ciprocal  services  of  the  parts.  "  One  deep  calleth 
another,"  and  one  atom  attracts  another  on  opposite 
sides  of  the  globe.  This  is  not  a  figure  of  speech,  but 
a  literal  matter  of  fact.  Let  me  quote  one  of  our 
leading  men  of  science :  "  To  gravity,"  he  says,  "  all 
media  are,  as  it  were,  absolutely  transparent,  nay 
non-existent,  and  two  particles  at  opposite  points  of 
the  earth  affect  each  other  exactly  as  if  the  globe 
were  not  between.  To  complete  the  apparent  im- 
possibility, the  action  is,  so  far  as  we  can  observe, 
absolutely  instantaneous,  so  that  every  particle  of 
the  universe  is  at  every  moment  in  separate  cog- 
nizance, as  it  were,  of  the  relative  position  of  every 
other  particle  throughout  the  universe  at  the  same 
moment  of  absolute  time."  ^ 

This  great  law  of  the  mutual  interdependence 
and  reciprocal  action  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
universe  was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  only  he  looked  behind 
material  forces  to  the  spiritual  Power  which  wields 
and  controls  them.  In  St.  Paul's  view  matter  was 
no  dead  thing,  having  no  kind  of  relation  to  man 
or  God;  on  the  contrary,  he  regarded  the  universe 
as  one  vast  whole,  differentiated  by  hierarchies  of 
beino",  from  inorganic  matter  up  to  angelic  life,  and 

*  Jevons's  Principles  of  Science,  vol.  ii.  p.  144. 


OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  I59 

all  embraced  in  the  atonement  of  the  God-Man.  In 
the  eifrlitli  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  he 
pictures  "  the  whole  creation  "  as  "  groaning  and  tra- 
vailing in  pain  together  until  now,"  and  waiting  to 
share  in  the  redemption  of  the  human  race.  You 
will  find  a  still  more  striking  passage  in  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  where  the 
Apostle  represents  the  whole  creation,  angelic,  human, 
animate  and  inanimate,  as  having  a  part  in  Christ's 
atoning  sacrifice.  You  must  have  the  whole  passage 
before  you  in  order  to  appreciate  its  meaning  in  all 
its  range  and  depth.  He  speaks  of  God  the  Father 
as  having  "  delivered  us  from  the  power  of  darkness, 
and  translated  us  into  the  Kingdom  of  His  dear  Son, 
in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  His  Blood, 
even  the  forgiveness  of  sins :  Who  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  the  Firstborn  of  all  creation  :  for  by 
Him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and 
that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be 
thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers :  all 
things  were  created  by  Him,  and  for  Him.  And  He 
is  before  all  things,  and  by  Him  all  things  consist. 
And  He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church  :  Who 
is  the  beginning,  the  Firstborn  from  the  dead  ;  that 
in  all  things  He  might  have  the  pre-eminence.  For 
it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  Him  should  all  fulness 


i6o  THE  FATHER  SEEN  IN  THE  SON. 

dwell ;  and  having  made  peace  through  the  Blood  of 
His  Cross,  by  Him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  Him- 
self ;  by  Him,  I  say,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth, 
or  things  in  heaven." 

Try  to  follow  out  St.  Paul's  argument  in  that 
passage.  God  the  Father,  you  will  observe,  is  not 
represented  as  an  angry  Deity  between  whose  wrath 
and  the  guilty  race  of  man  the  Divine  Son  interposes 
as  an  adequate  victim.  On  the  contrary,  Father  and 
Son  are  portrayed  as  co-operating  in  loving  harmony 
for  the  redemption  of  man  and  the  atonement  of  all 
creation.  The  initiative  in  this  work  is  given  to  the 
Father  as  the  fount  of  Deity — the  initiative  not  in 
time,  but  in  the  internal  relations  of  the  Trinity.  It 
is  God  the  Father  Who  "  hath  made  us  meet  to  be 
partakers  of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light," 
and  "  Who  hath  delivered  us  from  the  power  of  dark- 
ness." And  this  He  has  done  through  the  mediation 
of  the  Son  of  His  love.  The  Father  is  personally 
invisible.  He  is  to  be  seen  only  in  the  Son,  "  Who  is 
the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  and  "  the  Firstborn 
of  all  creation,"  as  being  the  efficient  and  formal 
cause  whereby  the  creation  was  born  into  a  Divine 
adoption.  The  Apostle  then  goes  on  to  show  how 
Christ,  by  means  of  His  creative  and  mediatorial 
office,  has  brought  the  whole  creation,  "visible  and 


MAN  THE   COPULA    OF  CREATION.  i6i 

invlsil)le,"  within  the  sphere  of  His  atoniiifr  work  ; 
not  "  thrones  "  merely,  or  "  dominions,  or  principalities, 
or  powers,"  or  "the  Church,"  but  "all  thinr,'s," 
"  whether  they  be  things  in  earth,  or  thinp^s  in 
heaven."  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  Plim 
-hould  all  fulness  dwell" — that  the  Son,  in  other 
words,  should  by  His  Incarnation  comprehend  in 
Himself  the  whole  universe  of  being. 

Let  us  see  how  this  can  be.  And  let  us  begin 
by  considering  man's  relation  to  the  rest  of  created 
life.  Man  came  last  in  the  order  of  creation  ;  in  that 
the  conclusion  of  science  agrees  'with  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony.  ^lan  was  thus  intended  to  be  the  copula 
that  should  unite  the  lower  creation  with  the  highest 
form  of  created  life,  namely,  the  angelic.  He  w^as  in 
touch  w^th  all — with  inorganic  matter,  with  vege- 
table and  animal  life,  and  w4th  the  nature  of  angels. 
Physiologists  tell  us  that  man  in  the  early  stages  of 
his  development  passes  through  all  the  forms  of  life 
inferior  to  his  own.  His  body  is  allied  to  the  dust  of 
the  ground.  He  takes  up  vegetable  and  animal  life 
and  transmutes  them  into  his  own  higher  life,  and 
the  lower  types  of  life  are  thus  represented  parabo- 
lically,  as  it  were,  in  the  human  embryo.  Now  look 
f<^r  a  moment  at  the  typical  characteristic  of  the 
different  strata  of    life.      The  lower  the  life  is,  the 


i62  man's  tripartite  nature. 

more   material    are  its  gratifications.     In  vegetables 
the  material   appetite  is  everything.     The  vegetable 
fulfils  the  end  of  its  being  best  when  it  most  freely 
takes   and    uses    all    the    matter   it    can    assimilate. 
Animals  possess  a  higher  life  than  vegetables.     They 
have  a  kind  of  spontaneity,  possess  an  inferior  form 
of  soul  endowed  with   emotion,  and  have  a  limited 
and  circumscribed  intelligence.     Their  life  is  chiefly 
material,  and  they  live  mainly  for  the  gratification 
of  their  appetites ;  but  not  altogether.     They  have  an 
inchoate  soul  which  needs  a  higher  kind  of  life  to 
change  animal  into  person.     Man,  as  I  have  said,  is 
related  through  his  body  to  inorganic  matter,  and  to 
vegetable  and  animal  life ;  but  he  is  still  more  closely 
related  to  animal  life  through  his  soul.     So  far  as 
man  consists  of  body  and  soul  only  his  life  is  merely 
that   of    the    brute.      But   God   "breathed   into   his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living 
soul " — a  being  endowed  with  reason,  conscience,  capa- 
city of  self-sacrificing  love — the  "  perfect  love  which 
casteth  out  fear."     Through  His  spirit  man  is  related 
to  the  ano^elic  order,  and  is  enabled  to  hold  commu- 
nion  with  God.      Man  was  thus  created  to  be  the 
nexus    between    the    highest    and    lowest   forms   of 
created  life.     The   animals  were  brought  to  him  in 
Paradise,   and   he    classified    them.      Dominion  was 


BAS/S  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  163 

given  him  over  the  lower  creation,  and  if  he  had 
kept  his  innocence  and  perfected  liis  character  by 
self-conscious  discipline,  the  Son  of  God  would  still 
have  become  Incarnate,  but  without  need  of  Cross  or 
Passion.  When  man  fell,  however,  he  broke  the  unity 
and  harmony  of  creation,  and  the  lower  elements  of 
his  nature  soon  began  to  triumph  over  the  higher. 
The  animal  soul,  with  its  brutal  appetites,  "  pressed 
down  the  incorruptible  spirit,"  as  the  son  of  Siraxjh 
says.  Intellectual  development  was  of  no  avail  when 
spirit  was  dethroned,  for  the  intellect  became  enlisted 
in  the  service  of  the  animal  appetites.^ 

Now  let  us  go  back  to  the  great  passage  on  the 
Atonement  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  to 
which  I  have   already  referred.      Just  as  the  innu- 

*  I  qnote  an  impfiriial  witness  in  ratification  of  this  statement  :-- 
"  Intellect  is  not  a  power,  but  an  instrument ;  not  a  thinjif  which 
itself  moves  and  works,  but  a  thing  which  is  moved  and  worked  by 
forces  from  behind  it.  To  say  that  men  are  ruled  by  reason  is  as 
irrational  as  to  say  that  they  are  ruled  by  their  eyes.  Ileason  is 
an  eye — the  eye  through  which  the  desires  see  their  way  to  gratifica- 
lion.  And  educating  it  only  makes  it  a  better  eye;  gives  it  a  vision 
more  accurate  aud  more  comprehensive ;  does  not  at  all  alter  the 
desires  subserved  by  it.  However  far-seeing  you  mako  it,  the 
passions  will  still  determine  the  directions  in  which  it  shall  be  turned, 
the  objects  on  which  it  shall  dwell.  Just  thoso  ends  which  the 
instincts  or  sentiments  propose  will  the  intellect  bo  employed 
to  accomplish :  culture  of  it  having  done  nothing  but  increase 
the  ability  to  accomplish  them.— Herbert  Spencer'a  Hocxal  Statics, 
p.  382. 


1 64  CHRISrS  ATONEMENT 

merable  worlds  which  are  scattered  through  infinite 
space  are  not  isolated  and  independent  of  each  other, 
but,   on   the   contrary,  correlated,   so   that   they  are 
ceaselessly  acting   and  reacting  on    each   other,   not 
only  in  the  mass,  but  in  all  their  particles  ;  so  neither 
are  the  realities  of  the  spiritual  world,  its  thrones, 
dominions,  principalities,  and  powers,  isolated  facts  ; 
they  are  intimately  related,  and  are  being  brought 
back  to  the  primal  unity  through  the  Incarnation  of 
the   Eternal  Word   energizing  through   the  Church, 
which  is  His  Body.     So  transcendent  a  fact  as  the 
Incarnation  of  God   could   not   be   limited   and   ex- 
hausted by  man's  needs ;  it  affected  the  universe  and 
was  independent  of  man's  Fall,  although  that  event 
had  been   foreseen    and   provided    for.     The    angelic 
world  was  interested  in  the  Incarnation,  and  so  was 
inanimate   nature,   all-unconscious    as   it  was   of   its 
discords  and  its  share  in  the  universal  adoption.     Let 
us  look  at  the  matter  a  little  more  closely.     Our  Lord 
took   a   human   body   the   same    as    ours    in   all   its 
constituent  elements ;    a  body,  therefore,  related  to 
inorofanic  matter  and  to  veo-etable  and  animal  life. 
He  possessed,  like  other  men,  an  animal  soul  which, 
apart  from  spirit,  leaves   man  a  brute.     He  took  a 
human  spirit,  including  all  that  we  mean  by  intel- 
lectual and  moral  qualities.     And  all  this  was  in  Him 


COEXTENSIVE    WITH  CREATION.  165 

united  to  a  Divine  personality.  In  this  way  he  made 
atoneniunt  for  tlie  whole  of  creation,  which  He  made 
one  with  Himself,  and  through  Himself  with  the  Triune 
Clodhead.  "  He  took  not  on  Him  the  nature  of  angels, 
but  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  He  layeth  hold."  Had 
He  taken  angelic  nature  into  union  with  Himself,  the 
rest  of  creation  would  not  have  been  affected  thereby. 
But  by  taking  human  nature  He  embraced  the  whole 
universe  of  life  in  the  fulness  of  His  atonement. 
And  we  find  creation  in  its  typical  representatives 
celebrating  His  birtli ;  the  manger  receiving  His 
infant  form  ;  the  cold  air  of  a  winter's  night  warmed 
by  the  breath  of  cattle,  kinder  to  Him,  though  they 
knew  it  not  themselves,  than  the  highly  favoured 
race  for  whom  He  came  to  suffer  and  to  die ;  and  the 
choir  of  angels  proclaiming  His  birth,  not  to  the  kings 
and  nobles  of  the  earth,  but  to  the  gentle  shepherds 
of  Bethlehem.  We  have  some  foregleams  of  this 
comprehensive  character  of  the  Atonement  in  the  Old 
Testament ;  for  example,  in  the  twenty-third  verse 
of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Job.  Referring  to  man's 
redemption,  Eliphaz  the  Temanite  says,  "  For  thou 
shalt  be  in  league  with  the  stones  of  the  field,  and 
the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  be  in  league  witli  thee." 
Similarly  in  Hosea  ii.  18:  "And  in  that  day  will  I 
make  a  covenant  for   tlicm   with   tlie   beasts   of  the 


i66  S/N  AND  RETRIBUTION. 

field,  and  with  the  fowls  of  heaven,  and  with  the 
creeping  things  of  the  ground ;  and  I  will  break  the 
bow  and  the  sword  and  the  battle  out  of  the  earth, 
and  will  make  them  to  lie  down  safely." 

But  does  this  view  of  the  Atonement  exhaust  the 
meaning  of  the  doctrine  ?  Evidently  not.  It  would 
have  done  so  had  there  been  no  sin.  But  sin  is 
a  fact  and  involves  guilt — the  feeling  of  outraged 
justice  and  impending  retribution.  The  sense  of  un- 
worthiness  to  hold  direct  communication  with  God  is 
one  of  the  deepest  feelings  in  our  nature.  We  have 
examples  of  it  in  the  histories  of  the  saints  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  and  all  along  the  course  of 
history.  The  traditions  of  heathendom  testify  to  the 
same  truth,  and  also  the  universal  prevalence  of  the 
doctrine  of  sacrifice.  What,  then,  do  we  mean  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  in  this  more  specific  sense  ? 
It  is  easy  enough  to  understand  that  we  come  into  the 
world  with  a  disorganized  nature,  a  nature  that  has 
lost  its  principle  of  harmony,  and  in  which  the  animal 
predominates  over  the  spiritual.  Hereditary  e\dl,  both 
moral  and  physical,  is  a  fact  too  plain  to  be  disputed 
But  hereditary  guilt  ?  Can  guilt  really  be  hereditary  ? 
Let  us  think.  Have  we  anything  of  the  same  kind 
in  secular  life?  A  nobleman  rebels  against  his  sove- 
reign.    What   is  the   consequence  ?     He   forfeits   his 


HEREDITARY   GUILT.  167 

life.  Is  that  all?  No;  he  forfeits  also  his  noliility, 
his  possessions,  and  his  privileges,  and  not  for  him- 
self only  but  for  his  posterity.  Guilt  therefore 
may  in  a  sense  be  hereditary  in  civil  life,  but  only 
in  a  negative  sense.  To  put  a  child,  still  more  a 
remote  descendant,  to  death  for  an  ancestral  crime 
would  be  held  a  monstrous  perversion  of  justice,  re- 
volting to  the  moral  sense.  Surely  then  we  cannot 
ascribe  to  Almighty  God  conduct  which  we  should 
regard  as  immoral  on  the  part  of  man.  Our  conscience 
rebels  aixainst  the  notion  that  God  would  consirm  to 
endless  torment  any  human  being  for  a  sin  committed 
by  a  remote  ancestor.  In  matter  of  fact  God  condemns 
no  one  to  endless  torment.  He  inflicts  no  arbitrary 
punishment  on  any  one.  "  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it 
shall  die."  "  God  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and 
come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth."  But  what  do 
we  mean  by  being  saved  ?  Not  simply  the  remission 
of  punishment.  So  far  from  it,  the  man  who  has  a 
real  sense  of  his  own  guilt  has  no  wish  to  escape 
due  punishment.  He  seeks,  on  the  contrary,  to  make 
reparation  for  the  wrong.  God  cannot  make  us  happy 
1  ty  simply  forgiving  us  and  imputing  to  us  a  righteous- 
ness which  belongs  to  another.  Our  conscience  is 
burdened  rather  than  relieved  by  leaniing  that  an 
innocent   person    has    borne    the   punishment   which 


i68  HELL  IS   WITHIN  THE  SINNER. 

we  deserved.  Do  you  suppose  you  could  make  all  the 
criminals  in  this  kingdom  happy  by  a  general  gaol 
delivery?  Far  from  it,  unless  you  had  previously 
reformed  their  characters  and  rooted  their  evil  habits 
out  of  their  nature.  You  must  not  believe  that  God 
is  keeping  any  one  in  a  place  of  torment  against  that 
person's  will.  "The  kingdom  of  heaven,"  said  our 
Lord  on  one  occasion,  "  is  within  you."  The  kingdom 
of  hell  is  also  within  the  sinner's  own  breast,  in  the 
anarchy  and  tormenting  appetites  of  a  ruined  consti- 
tution. Men  are  not  punished  arbitrarily  in  the 
spiritual  world  for  what  they  have  done  here,  but 
for  what  they  continue  to  do  there  as  the  inevitable 
consequence  of  the  habits  formed  in  this  world. 
Pain  does  not  assail  the  drunkard  to-day  as  an 
arbitrary  infliction  apart  from  the  excess  of  yester- 
day ;  it  is  the  excess  of  yesterday  continued  in  its 
results  and  impelling  him  to  a  repetition  of  the 
cause  of  his  misery.  Death  makes  no  breach  in  the 
continuity  of  human  character.  Man  carries  with 
him  into  the  spiritual  realm  precisely  that  character 
which  he  bore  in  this  life.  "  He  that  is  unjust,  let 
him  be  unjust  still :  and  he  which  is  filthy,  let  him  be 
filthy  still:  and  he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be  righteous 
still :  and  he  that  is  holy,  let  him  be  holy  still."  The 
punishment  of  the  lost  is  no  arbitrary  infliction  from 


LOVE  IS  INEXORABLE.  169 

without,  but  a  torment  sprinpnj^  from  witliin ;  from 
ranging  auimal  appetites  or  fiendish  passions  which 
devour  the  wretched  creatures  who  have  become  their 
impotent  slaves.  So  long  as  sin  remains  in  man's  nature 
he  must  of  necessity  be  miserable,  for  he  cherishes  in 
liis  bosom  the  scorpion  from  which  comes  his  pain.  God 
strives  to  root  out  sin  from  our  nature  because  He 
knows  that  pardon  is  otherwise  useless.  God  loves  us, 
and  there  is  nothing  so  inexorable  as  love  wlien  it  is 
crenuine.  There  is  no  weakness  in  it.  It  will  inflict 
present  anguish  to  save  from  future  misery.  And 
thus  God  never  passes  over  the  sins  of  those  He  loves. 
He  will  not  leave  them  alone,  will  not  abandon  them 
to  themselves.  He  takes  away  the  desire  of  their 
eyes,  sends  them  cruel  disappointments,  forces  them 
into  the  narrow  thorny  way,  desolates  their  homes  and 
leaves  their  idols  all  shivered  around  them,  that  they 
may  learn  where  their  true  happiness  lies.  As  gold  is 
put  into  the  furnace  to  separate  the  dross  from  tlic 
pure  ore,  so  God  flings  men  into  the  furnace  of  afilic- 
tion,  that  He  may  separate  the  sin  which  He  hates 
from  the  soul  which  He  loves.  That  is  why  He  is 
called  in  tlie  Old  and  New  Testament  "a  consumiii;^^ 
Are."  Fire  does  not  destroy,  does  not  annihilate:  it 
disintegrates,  separates  substances  which  are  foreign 
to  each  other.     God  pursues  us  witli  the  fire  of  His 


170  DIVINE  JUSTICE   THE 

love,  seeking  to  melt  and  mould  us  into  conformity 
with  His  will,  because  that  is  the  only  way  in 
which  He  can  make  us  happy  But  He  is  never 
vindictive,  never  unwilling  to  forgive,  never  requires 
a  victim,  like  a  Pagan  deity,  to  appease  oflfended 
majesty. 

What  then  do  we  mean  by  the  Atonement  when  we 

use  it  in  the  sense  of  propitiation  ?     Now  remember, 

to  start  with,  that   the  barrier  to  reconciliation  lies 

always  in  the  will  of  man,  never  in  the  will  of  God. 

Atonement  means  making  at  one  again  persons  who 

have  been  sundered.      How  are  they  to  be  brought 

together?     Analyze  your  own   feelings.     When  you 

have  wronged,  deeply  hurt,  one  who  has  been  kind  to 

you,  what  is  your  first  feeling  ?     A  longing  to  make 

reparation.      Forgiveness  would   be   painful    to   you 

without   reparation  on   your   part.     Your  conscience 

tells   you  of   a  law  of   compensation  which   forbids 

complete    reconciliation,   entire    atonement,    till    the 

law    of     compensation    has    been    satisfied.       Even 

a   child   will   yearn    to   off'er    some    gift,   purchased 

perhaps  with  the  parent's  own  money,  to  expiate  its 

faults.      There  is  an   innate  sense  of  justice  in   the 

breast  of  man  which  is  a  reflex  of  the  Divine  justice. 

But  what  do  we  mean  by  the  Divine  justice  ?     It  is 

the  ofispring  of  Divine  love  at  war  with  sin,  which 


OFFSPKJNG   OF  DIVINE   LOVE.  171 

is  the  contradiction  of  all  that  is  truly  lovahlc'  The 
law  of  compensation  or  retribution  pervades  the 
universe.  In  the  beginnin;]^  God  made  cverythincr 
"very  good,"  and  He  so  ordered  the  work  of  His 
hands  that  it  should  inevitably  avenge  on  the  trans- 
gressor, sooner  or  later,  every  violation  of  the  Divine 
order.  Man's  good  or  happiness  is  thus  contingent 
on  his  conformity  to  the  will  of  God,  and  every 
violation  of  that  will  must  entail  sufferinjr.  which 
is  thus  a  finger-post  set  up  by  the  Eternal  Love 
to  warn  the  unwary  from  dangerous  paths.  God 
wills  the  happiness  of  every  form  of  created  life,  and 
it  is  probable  that  in  the  world  of  life  below  man 
happiness  predominates  so  largely  as  to  reduce 
conscious  suffering  almost  to  zero.  To  tlie  animal 
mere  existence  is  a  joy.  Its  life  is  ever  in  the 
present.  No  regrets  haunt  it  from  the  past,  and 
coming  events  do  not  cast  their  shadows  before.  And 
when  death  overtakes  it,  either  by  natural  process  or 
violence,  there  is  probably  little  or  no  suffering,  as  we 

*  "  Giastizia  mosse  '1  mio  alto  fattoro  : 
Fecemi  la  divina  potestate, 
La  somina  sapicnza  e  '1  primo  amoro."' 

Inferno,  Canto  iii. 

We  may  acknowledge  the  profound  truth  which  nnderlies  this  ex- 
planation of  the  oripin  of  the  ciit^  dolente  without  necessarily 
adopting  all  Dante's  views  on  Escbatology. 


172  RATIONALE    OF  THE  INNOCENT 

understand  the  word.  It  is  when  man  appears  upon 
the  scene  that  suffering  really  begins,  and  justice  is 
the  form  which  the  Divine  love  takes  to  drive  man 
into  the  ways  of  happiness.  It  is  therefore  a  paral- 
ogism to  contrast  Divine  love  and  Divine  justice  as 
if  they  were  opposite,  or  even  different,  attributes. 
Love  always  gives  happiness  to  those  who  conform 
to  its  laws;  in  the  form  of  justice  it  inflicts  pain 
on  the  sinner,  and  must  continue  to  do  so  while  he 
sins. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  it  is  not  the  sinner 
who  always  suffers,  but  very  often  the  innocent.  In 
matter  of  fact  the  sinner  always  does  suffer,  though 
the  suffering  may  be  long  delayed  and  he  may  fail  to 
recognize  it  when  it  comes.  But  it  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  the  innocent  do  suffer  for  the  sins  and 
errors  of  others.  How  is  this  to  be  reconciled  witli 
the  Divine  justice  which  I  have  called  the  offspring 
of  Divine  love  ?  The  answer  is  that  mankind  is  an 
organic  unity,  a  moral  organism,  so  that  injury  done 
to  a  part  is  in  fact  done  to  the  whole.-^  This  view  is 
enforced   all   through   the  Bible,  and   by  none  more 

'  See  Dr.  Kedney's  Christian  Doctrine  Harmonized  and  its  Ration- 
ality Vindicated,  vol.  i.  p.  265.  A  striking  and  profound  book,'which 
has  come  under  my  notice  as  these  sheets  have  been  passing  through 
the  press,  and  which  I  have  not  been  able  as  yet  to  read  through, — 
indeed,  to  read  at  all  with  the  care  which  it  evidently  deserves. 


SUFFER  I XG  FOR    THE    GUILTY.  173 

omphatically  than   by  St.  Paul,  as  in  the  following,' 
piussages  : — "  For  as  we   have  many  members  in  one 
])ody,  and  all  members  have  not  the  same  office ;  so 
we,  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  severally 
members  one  of  another."    And  these  several  members 
have  need  of  each  other,  so  "that  there  should  be  no 
schism   in   the  body ;   but  that  the  members  should 
liave  the  same  care  one  for  another.     And  whether 
one  member  suffer,  all  tlie  members  suffer  witli  it;  or 
one   member   be  honoured,  all    the  members   rejoice 
with   it."       Human    languapre    bears    witness    to  this 
doctrine — in  such  words,  for  example,  as  "  fellow-feel- 
\n^"  and  "sympathy;"  and  the  history  of  the  race 
furnishes  abundant  illustration  of  it.    Even  physically 
one  member  may  affect  injuriously  a  whole  community 
— may  propagate  a  germ  of   evil  which  vitiates  the 
hves  of   all.     Spiritual   influences,  being  much  more 
subtle,  are  consequently  much  more  contagious.     AV*' 
are  constantly  throwing  out  moral  influences  on  each 
other  by  word,  look,  gesture  ;  and  the  law  of  vicarious 
suffering   is  thus  seen  to  pervade  the   human   race. 
But  there  is  no  injustice,  inasmuch  as  the  race  is  one, 
a  real  organism,  moral,  intellectual,  and   bodily;    no 
injustice  more  than  there  is,  according  to  St.  Paul's 
analogy,  in  the  members  of   the   human  body  being 
severally  affected  by  each  other's  pains. 


174  ^^^  ALIENATES  FROM  GOD. 

The  Eternal  Son  of  God,  then,  having  become 
Incarnate,  having  taken  human  nature  in  its 
integrity,  with  the  hereditary  proclivities  of  the  Fall 
cut  off  by  His  miraculous  Conception,  and  having, 
in  St.  Paul's  language,  thus  "  recapitulated  "  humanity 
in  His  reconstruction  of  it,  it  follows  that  He  also 
bore  and  suffered  for  its  sins.  "He  was  made  sin 
for  us  Who  knew  no  sin,"  and  thereby  made  an 
atonement  for  the  whole  race. 

Now  we  all  awake,  when  we  begin  to  reason  about 
these  things,  to  the  consciousness  of  our  unworthiness 
to  appear  before  God,  We  have  a  feeling  of  guilt  on 
our  conscience,  which  bears  witness  to  our  organic 
membership  of  an  attainted  race.  But,  in  truth, 
there  is  no  need  to  puzzle  ourselves  about  inherited 
guilt.  We  have  sins  enough  of  our  own  to  humble 
us  and  to  make  us  exclaim  with  Peter  :  "  Depart  from 
me,  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord."  The  natural 
impulse  of  fallen  man  is  to  hide  himself,  like  Adam, 
from  the  presence  of  his  Maker.  Human  nature 
therefore  needs  an  atonement,  and  has  always  cried 
aloud  for  it ;  needs  some  way  of  access  back  to  God, 
some  means  whereby  the  alienation  that  has  subsisted 
between  man's  nature  and  God's  shall  be  removed. 
And  this  was  done  by  the  Incarnation  of  the  Divine 
nature  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth.     By  that  transcendent 


THE  RANSOM  PAID  BY  CHRIST.  175 

condescension  the  Son  of  Man  "opened  the  Kingdom 
of   Heaven   to   all   believers" — to   all,   that   is,  who 
choose  to  avail  themselves  of  the  restored  heritage 
of  humanity.     God  the  Son  took  human  nature  in 
its  integrity,  and   thus   learnt  experimentally  what 
sin   entailed.      Through   His    humiliation,   suffering, 
and  death  He  fulfilled  the  law  of  retribution  which 
ordains  that  morally  every  wrong  must  be  righted ; 
that  sin  is  sure  to  find  the  sinner  out  sooner  or  later ; 
that  humanity,  collectively  and  regarded  as  a  moral 
entity,  must  pay  the  debt  of  its  transgression ;  that 
an   offence   ajrainst   Eternal   Love   must   be   undone. 
So,  you  see,  the  atonement  made  by  Christ  is  in  a 
manner  the  payment  of  a  ransom  or  debt;    but  a 
ransom,  not   to  appease   a  vengeful   Divine   Father, 
but   to   liberate   mankind   from   the   thraldom   of   a 
disorganized  nature.      For  in  sad  truth   man  unre- 
deemed is  in  real  bondage  :  bondage  to  Nature,  which 
has  become  his  master  and  tyrant  instead  of  being 
his  servant ;  bondage  to  ancestral  tendencies  towards 
physical    and   moral   degeneration;     bondage    to   an 
obliquity  of  vision  and  infirmity  of   purpose  which 
make   him  an  easy  prey  to   temptation.     To   break 
the  spell  of  these  malign  influences ;  to  place  at  the 
centre  of  human  nature  a  new  principle  of  life  from 
which  men  may  make  a  fresh  start ; — this  surely  is  in 


176  HUMANITY  DEIFIED  IN  CHRIST. 

a  very  real  sense  to  pay  a  ransom  for  fallen  man ;  to 
break  his  bonds ;  to  open  the  door  of  his  prison  and 
enable  him  to  regain  his  liberty.  And  this  is  what 
Christ  did  by  His  atoning  sacrifice — a  sacrifice 
begun  when  He  "  emptied  Himself "  of  His  divine 
glory,  and  consummated  when  He  died  on  the  Cross. 
Had  our  Lord  been  a  mere  man  He  could  not  have 
made  an  atonement.  His  acts  could  have  affected 
none  but  Himself ;  they  could  have  had  no  influence 
on  the  destiny  of  the  race.  But  the  humanity  of 
Christ  is  not  that  of  any  particular  man ;  it  is  uni- 
versal humanity,  humanity  in  the  abstract,  humanity 
viewed  germinally.  His  manhood  therefore  reaches 
to  every  member  of  the  race.  He  is  the  pure  Vine  of 
which  all  human  beings  may  become  branches;  the 
Well  of  Living  Water  out  of  which  all  may  drink  and 
imbibe  eternal  life.  Llan  may  now  approach  His  Maker 
without  shame  or  fear,  for  he  may  approach  Him  in 
the  nature  of  the  Second  Adam,  in  the  very  manhood 
which  God  Himself  now  wears.  Humanity  is  thus 
made,  as  St.  Peter  does  not  hesitate  to  express  it, 
"  partaker  of  the  Divine  Nature."  ^  An  atonement 
has  been  made  which  is  adequate  to  all  the  require- 

*  (pvcris,  not  ovaia ;  i.e.  the  attributes  of  God,  which  are  in  part 
communicable,  not  His  incommunicable  essence.  It  was  of  the  <pvati, 
not  the  ovffLa,  that  the  Word  emptied  Himself,  "  economically,"  when 
He  became  man. 


MEANING   OF  PREDESTINATION.  177 

iiicnts  of  tlie  case.  Look  again  at  tlic  first  cliaptci- 
of  the  Epistlo  to  the  Colossians  in  tlio  lii^lit  of  the 
explanations  which  I  liavc  given,  and  you  will  see 
what  a  depth  of  meaning  and  moral  grandeur  is 
concentrated  in  the  Apostle's  terse  statement  of  the 
iloctrine  of  the  Atonement  as  an  all-cml»racing 
dispensation  existing  eternally  in  tlio  Divine  inten- 
tion, and  not  as  an  isolated  fact  in  time  to  meet  an 
unforeseen  emergency.  It  is  in  the  light  of  that 
great  truth  that  St.  Paul's  references  to  predestination 
must  be  understood.  And  it  is  in  that  sense  that  one 
of  our  own  Articles  of  Religion  explains  the  matter 
when  it  tells  us  that  "  We  must  receive  God's  promises 
(of  salvation)  ill  such  wise  as  they  be  generally  set 
forth  to  us  in  Holy  Scripture."  "Generally  set  forth  ; " 
that  docs  not  mean  set  forth  for  the  most  part  or  in, 
a  general  wa}-,  but  set  forth  generically — that  is,  as 
applicable  to  the  entire  race.  The  word  in  the  Latin 
version  of  the  seventeenth  Article  indicates  this  inter- 
pretation. This  universality  of  the  Atonement  as 
covering  the  whole  of  creation  had  strong  hold  of  St. 
Paul's  mind.  He  states  it  as  follows  in  Eph.  i.  0-12: 
— "  Having  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  His 
will,  according  to  His  good  pleasure  which  He  liath 
purposed  in  Himself :  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the 
fulness  of   times  he    miirht  cfather   toGfether    in   one 

N 


178  ATTRACTIVE  POWER   OF 

[the  essential  idea  of  atonement]  all  things  in  Christ, 
both  which  are  in  heaven,  and  which  are  on  earth ; 
even  in  Him :  in  Whom  also  we  have  obtained  an 
inheritance,  being  predestinated  according  to  the  pur- 
pose of  Him  Who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel 
of  His  own  will:  that  we  should  be  to  the  praise 
of  His  glory,  who  first  trusted  in  Christ."  The 
word  translated  "o-ather  too^ether  in  one,"  means 
"recapitulated,"  summed  up  and  reduced  to  harmo- 
nious unity  under  one  Head  through  the  Incarnation. 
That  is  the  leading  idea  of  the  Atonement  in  St. 
Paul's  teaching;  and  the  predestination  he  speaks 
of  is  simply  that  of  pre-eminence  in  a  world-wide 
process. 

And  it  is  this  view  of  it  which  has  made  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  so  attractive  and  subduing, 
revolutionizing  man's  ideas  not  only  towards  God,  or 
even  towards  man,  but  towards  all  creation,  investing 
it  with  a  mystery  and  sanctity  it  never  had  inspired 
before.  God,  as  depicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  says 
Arthur  Hallam — and  we  may  add  still  more  so  as  He 
is  exhibited  in  the  Incarnation — "was  a  manifold 
everlasting  manifestation  of  one  deep  feeling — a 
desire  for  human  affection.  Love  is  not  asked  in  vain 
from  generous  dispositions ; "  and  Infinite  Love  con- 
descending  to    sue    for    the    love    of    man    becomes 


THE  ATONEMENT,  i79 

iaTesistiblc  to  all  iiiin«ls  wlio  Relieve  in  tlu-  Incarna- 
tion and  liavc  not  polluted  theil'  atlcctions.  A 
strikini;-  illustration  of  this  is  given  in  a  letter  from 
a  Cliristian  native  in  one  of  the  South  Sea  Islands, 
^vllo  liad  been  a  cannibal.  He  went  up  to  tlie  altar 
one  day  to  receive  the  Holy  Communion,  and  I  will 
relate  in  Iiis  own  words  what  followed : — "  When  I 
approached  the  table  I  did  not  know  beside  whom  I 
should  have  to  kneel.  Then  suddenly  I  saw  beside 
nie  a  man  wlio  some  years  ago  slew  my  father,  and 
drank  his  blood,  wliom  I  tlien  swore  I  would  kill  the 
tirst  time  I  should  see  him.  Now  think  what  I  felt 
when  I  suddenly  knelt  beside  him.  It  came  upon  me 
with  terrible  power,  and  I  could  not  prevent  it,  and 
so  I  went  back  to  my  seat.  Arriving  there  I  saw  in 
tlie  spirit  tlie  upper  sanctuary,  and  seemed  to  hear  a 
voice  saying,  '  Hereby  shall  all  men  know  that  ye 
are  My  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to  anotlier.' 
That  made  a  deep  impression  on  me,  and  it  seemed  to 
me  in  thought  that  I  saw  another  sight,  a  cross,  and 
a  man  nailed  thereon,  and  I  heard  him  say :  *  Father, 
forgive  them,  for  tliey  know  not  what  they  <lo.* 
Then  I  went  back  to  the  altar." 

Another  illustration  still  more  remarkable  is  sup- 
plied by  the  famous  passage  reported  from  Napoleon's 
conversations  at  St.  Helena — a  passage  that  cannot  be 


i8o  QUOTATION  FROM  NAPOLEON. 

quoted  too  often.  "I  have  been  accustomed  to  put 
before  me  the  examples  of  Alexander  and  Coesar,  witli 
the  hope  of  rivalling  their  exploits,  and  living  in  the 
minds  of  men  for  ever.  Yet,  after  all,  in  \Yhat  sense 
does  Alexander,  in  what  sense  does  Caesar,  live  ?  Who 
knows  or  cares  anything  about  them  ?  .  .  .  But,  on 
the  contrary,  there  is  just  one  Name  in  the  world  that 
lives.  It  is  the  Name  of  One  Who  passed  His  years 
in  obscurity,  and  Who  died  a  malefactor's  death. 
Eighteen  hundred  years  have  gone  since  that  time, 
but  still  it  has  its  hold  upon  the  human  mind.  It 
has  possessed  the  world,  and  it  maintains  possession. 
Amid  the  most  varied  nations,  under  the  most  diver- 
sified circumstances,  in  the  most  cultivated,  in  the 
rudest  races  and  intellects,  in  all  classes  of  society, 
the  Owner  of  that  great  Name  reigns.  Higli  and  low, 
rich  and  poor,  acknowledge  Him.  Millions  of  souLs- 
are  conversing  with  Him,  are  venturing  on  His  Word, 
are  looking  for  His  presence.  Palaces,  sumptuous,  in- 
numerable, are  raised  to  His  honour ;  His  image,  as  in 
the  hour  of  His  deepest  humiliation,  is  triumphantly 
displayed  in  the  proud  city,  in  the  open  country,  in 
the  corners  of  streets,  on  the  tops  of  mountains.  .  ..  . 
It  is  worn  next  the  heart  in  life ;  it  is  held  before  the 
failing  eyes  in  death.  Here,  then,  is  One  Who  is  not 
a  mere  name,  Who  is  not  a  mere  fiction.     He  is  dead 


THE  ATONEMEN'r  AXD    WOMAX.  liii 

nnd  fronc,  Imt  still  ll*^  lives — lives  as  the  livinir  c'lier- 
i,rc'tic  tliou^i;ht  of  successive  generations,  as  tlie  awful 
motive  power  of  a  tliousand  great  events.  He  lias 
<loue  without  effort  what  others  with  lifelong  struggles 
have  not  done.  Can  He  be  less  than  Divine?  Who 
is  He  hut  the  Creator  Himself,  Who  is  Sovereign  over 
His  own  works,  tow^ards  Whom  our  eyes  turn  instinc- 
tively because  He  is  our  Father  and  our  God  ? " 

The  Atonement,  as  taught  by  St.  Paul,  has 
transfigured  man's  thoughts  about  his  relations  with 
all  forms  of  existence.  See  how  it  has  entirely 
altered  the  position  of  woman ;  and  the  position 
occupied  by  woman,  let  me  say,  is  always  a  test  of 
civilization.  Where  she  is  degraded  man  is  impure. 
Before  the  Son  of  God  was  "  born  of  a  woman," 
uniting  in  Himself  the  perfection  of  both  sexes,  woman 
had  become  for  the  most  part  the  slave  of  man's 
passions  or  the  toy  of  his  caprice.  Christianity  lias 
restored  her  to  her  original  position  as  man's  co-equal 
partner,  to  purify  and  refine  the  coarser  texture  of  his 
nature.  The  Atonement  has  also  shed  a  glory  and  a 
sanctity  on  humanity  as  such.  It  is  difficult  now  to 
realize  the  cheapness  in  which  human  nature  was  held 
even  among  the  most  cultivated  nations  of  antiquit3\ 
Slavery  prevailed  everywher(\  The  slaves  formed 
about  one-half  of  the  population  of  the  Roman  Empire, 


1 82  HUMANITY  ENNOBLED 

and  were  in  the  proportion  oi*  three  to  two  in  the  city 
of  Kome.  And  the  slave  was  treated  worse  than  brute 
animals,  with  far  more  cruelty,  and  with  indignities  of 
which  brutes  are  not  susceptible.  Christianity,  without 
making  premature  war  upon  slavery,  laid  down  prin^ 
ciples  which  have  been  fatal  to  slavery  wherever  they 
have  had  fair  play.  Again,  before  the  Incarnation 
natural  affection  had  become  to  a  large  extent  quenched. 
According  to  Roman  law  a  father  might  put  to  death 
even  an  adult  child  without  assigning  a  reason.  That, 
too,  became  at  once  impossible  under  Christianity. 
Infanticide  was  allowed  by  law  in  Greece  and  Kome. 
The  vision  of  the  Divine  Child  in  His  manger  crib  made 
infanticide  a  capital  crime  by  the  law  of  Christendom. 
Even  so  elevated  a  philosopher  as  Plato  recommended, 
in  his  ideal  Republic,  that  weakly  and  misshapen 
children  should  be  put  to  death  by  exposure  to  cold  or 
the  fangs  of  wild  beasts.  But  when  Jesus  laid  His  own 
pure  nature  against  the  polluted  humanity,  which  in  its 
sinless  essence  He  had  assumed,  that  He  might  purify 
it  and  staunch  its  wounds ;  when  He  took  up  squalid 
children  in  His  arms  and  blessed  them ;  when  He 
touched  the  leper,  and  cured  the  paralytic,  and  restored 
the  deformed,  and  committed  the  ulcerous  besfffar  at 
the  Rich  Man's  gate  to  the  guardianship  of  angels,  and 
dismissed  the  harlot  and  adulterer  in  hope,  bidding 


/>']'   THE   A  TO XE mi: XT.  1S3 

them  to  "sin  no  more," — Ho  tautrht  us  to  recognize 
and  reverence  the  Divine  iniao^c  in  its  most  repulsi\-e 
lunnan  embodiments,  and  indeed  to  love  it  all  the 
more  on  that  account.  He  has  glorified  suffering  in  all 
its  forms  by  precept  and  example: — 

"The  best  of  men 
That  e'er  wore  earth  about  Ilim  was  a  Sufferer — 
A  soft,  meek,  patient,  liumble,  trauquil  Si)irit  — 
The  lirst  true  Gentleman  that  ever  breathed.' 

Xo  sufiV'ring,  indeed,  ever  was  or  can  be  lilcc  His  ;  for 
in  Him  human  nature  was  summed  up  and  concen- 
trated. "  In  Thee  is  the  well  of  life."  As  the  Second 
Adam,  the  New  ^lan.  He  was  at  the  centre  of  hu- 
manity, and  was  tlius  in  touch  with  eveiy  pulsation 
of  its  sorrows,  and — still  worse — of  its  ingratitude, 
at  all  points  of  the  circumference.  The  purer,  the 
deeper,  the  stronger  a  man's  love  is,  tlie  more  keenly 
does  it  feel  the  lack  of  any  appreciative  response. 
Disappointment  passes  lightly  over  shallow  natures 
which  have  little  power  of  sympathy  and  do  not  feel 
deeply  the  need  of  fellowship.  What  pathos,  what 
<lread  of  coming  isolation,  breathes  through  the  gentle 
complaint:  "Behold,  the  hour  cometh,  yea,  is  now 
come,  that  ye  shall  be  scattered,  every  man  to  his  own, 
and  shall  leave  Me  alone."  Of  all  the  pains  that  He 
endured   perhaps  none    wounded    Him    more    deeply 


I $4  SYMPATHY  CREATED  BY  IT 

than  tlie  pang  of  baffled  love ;  "  wounded/'  too,  "  in  the 
liouse  of  His  friends."  In  a  sense  broader  and  deeper 
than  the  Roman  poet  dreamt  of,  "  nothing  human  is 
alien  from"  Him  Who  "for  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation  came  down  from  Heaven." 

The  animal  kingdom  also  has  been  brought  under 
the  dominion  of  the  love  of  the  Atonement.  A  society 
for  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to  animals  would  have 
been  regarded  as  a  premonitory  symptom  of  insanity 
among  even  the  most  cultivated  people  of  the  ancient 
world.  But  Christianity  has  made  cruelty  to  animals 
a  crime — an  offence  aec^inst  Him  Whose  care  is  over 
the  sparrows,  and  Who  ''feedeth  the  young  ravens 
that  call  upon  Him." 

The  Atonement  too,  understood  in  its  grand  broad 
sense,  has  created  a  sort  of  mysterious  sympathy 
between  Man  and  Nature.   In  the  licrht  of  that  doctrine 

o 

the  material  world  has  ceased  to  be  reo^arded  as  a 
"  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms."  It  is  seen  to  be  one 
great  whole,  bound  in  all  its  parts  by  mysterious  corre- 
lations and  sympathies,  which  culminate  in  man,  and 
through  him,  by  means  of  the  Incarnation,  in  God.  It 
is  a  trite  observation  that  there  is  very  little  evidence 
m  ancient  poetry  that  even  the  highest  minds  of 
heathendom  had  any  appreciation  of  natural  scenery, 
at  least  in  those  spiritual  aspects  of  it  with  which 


BETWEEN  MAN  AND  NATURE.  183 

•Christian  poetry  and  art  liave  iiuulo  us  so  I'amiliar. 
Wcn-dswortli  and  Kuskiii  would  have  l)een  simply 
unintelligible  in  Rome  and  Athens  before  Christianity 
forced  man  to  recognize  the  worlds  of  moral  and 
^spiritual  analogies  which  lie  behind  the  sights  and 
sounds  of  Nature.  Man  now  sees  everywhere,  if  he 
looks  for  it,  more  than  meets  the  careless  eye.  In 
wandering  clouds,  as  Ruskin  has  taught  us,  and  in 
tlie  forms  of  mountains ;  in  the  mystery  of  the  forest 
and  the  ocean  ;  in  the  joyousness  of  the  dawn  and  the 
melancholy  yearnings  inspired  by  the  setting  of  the 
.sun  behind  hill  or  sea,  the  Christian  is  reminded  of 
the  "light  that  never  was  on  sea  or  land,"  and 
lie  finds  everywhere  the  evidence  of  an  all-pervading 
Presence — 

"  Whose  dwelling  is  the  light  of  setting  suns, 
And  the  round  ocean,  and  the  living  air, 
And  the  blue  sky,  and  in  the  mind  of  man  : 
A  motion  and  a  spirit  which  impels 
All  thinking  things,  all  objects  of  all  thought, 
And  rolls  through  all  things." 

And  now,  lastly,  consider  the  dignity  imparted  to 
liuman  nature  by  its  assumption  into  Godhead.  "  Ye 
are  not  your  own,"  said  St.  Paul  to  tlie  Christians  of 
his  day,  and  his  warning  is  as  true  for  us.  The  nature 
wlilch  we  wear  is  now  worn  by  (Jod.  God  the  Son  is 
very  Man,  witli  a  human  intellect,  a  human  imagina- 


i86  INTERNAL   CONFLICT 

tion,  and  also  human  affections  which  throb  in  sym- 
pathy with  all  His  suffering  members.  It  is  a  consoling 
thought,  but  also  a  very  awful  one.  For  remember 
you  can  never  now  defile  or  disgrace  your  own  nature 
without  disgracing  His  Who  died  that  you  might  live 
You  know  how  even  in  this  Avorld  the  rest  of  the 
family  feel  keenly,  as  in  a  manner  of  their  own,  the 
disgrace  of  any  member  of  the  family.  We  Christians 
have  a  Brother  in  heaven,  Who  is  Kinoj  of  kinoes  and 
Lord  of  lords.  Have  you  ever  thought,  when  tempted 
to  sin,  that  you  were  about  to  "  crucify  afresh  the  Son 
of  God  " — to  make  the  blush  of  shame  mantle  on  His 
cheek — shame  for  the  stain  inflicted  on  the  nature 
which  is  His  as  well  as  yours,  and  which  He  redeemed 
for  you  ?  Remember,  further,  that  there  are  two  prin- 
ciples and  two  tendencies  in  the  nature  of  each  of  you 
contending  for  the  mastery.  On  the  one  hand  you 
have  a  nature  which  has  a  close  affinity  with  the 
lower  world,  a  nature  which  is  of  the  earth,  and  has 
an  animal  soul  with  animal  appetites  that  are  always 
draofgrino:  down  the  hio^her  nature  which  is  allied  to 
the  spiritual  sphere.  In  proportion  as  a  man  yields  to 
his  animal  appetites  the  lower  nature  gains  upon  the 
higher,  and  may  at  length  completely  crush  it,  leaving 
the  animal  alone  in  possession.  St.  Paul  calls  atten- 
tion in  many  places  to  this  internal  conflict  in  each 


JX  JIl'MAX  NATURE.  187 

of  US,  and  in  his  -ivat  chapter  on  th(>  Resurrection 
(1  Cor.  XV.)  ho  points  out  tho  two  tendencies  and 
principles  in  human  nature  to  which  I  have  just 
referred.  The  human  body,  he  says,  "  is  sown  a  natural 
i.ody  ;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  hody.  Tliere  is  a  natural 
l.ody,  and  there  is  a  spiritual  Itody.  And  so  it  is 
written,  Tlie  first  man  Adam  was  made  a  living  soul; 
the  Last  Adam  was  made  a  (|uickeninf]j  spirit."  The 
word  translated  "natural"  here  is  literally  "psychical," 
that  is,  under  the  dominion  of  the  animal  soul.  In 
other  words,  man  became  through  Adam's  fall  sul)ject 
to  the  dominion  of  the  animal  part  of  his  nature.  But 
the  Second  Adam  triumphed  over  the  animal  nature 
and  asserted  and  established  the  supremacy  of  spirit. 
We  have  now  to  make  our  choice,  and  it  is  a  very- 
serious  one,  for  it  may  be  irrevocable.  Once  you 
deliberately  place  yourself  on  the  down-grade  of  sin 
you  have  no  security  that  you  can  ever  retrace  your 
steps. 


IX. 

^And  the  third  Day  He  rose  again  accord- 
ing TO  the  Scriptures." 

CHRIST  MUST  HAVE  RISEN. 

To-day  we  are  to  consider  the  question  of  Christ's 
Resurrection  from  the  dead.  To  the  Christian  that 
question  admits  of  only  one  ansAver :  Jesus  must  have 
risen  from  the  dead;  "it  was  not  possible/'  as  St. 
Peter  declared  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  "that  He 
should  be  holden  "  of  death.  Why  was  it  impossible  ? 
First,  because  of  the  Hypostatic  Union — the  union,  that 
is,  of  the  Divine  nature  and  the  human  in  His  single 
Person.  In  virtue  of  that  union  the  human  nature  of 
our  Lord  was  never  separated  for  an  instant,  and  could 
not  be,  from  His  Person — that  is,  from  the  Godhead. 
Our  Lord's  Divine  Person  was  with  His  soul  in  Hades 
and  with  His  Body  in  the  tomb.  It  was  thus  im- 
possible that  death  should  have  had  dominion  over 
Him.  What  was  inseparably  united  with  God  could 
not  be  the  prey  of  corruption  and  the  helpless  victim 
of  death.     He  "  drank  of  the  brook  in  the  way,"  but 


METArilYSICAL    NECESSITY.  1S9 

only  in  the  way,  only  as  an  incident  ni  His  triuni- 
])hant  progress.  He  "tasted  death  for  every  man." 
Humanity,  summed  up  in  Him,  un<Urw(nt  tlu;  full 
penalty  of  Adam's  guilt.  He  laid  down  His  life 
Noluntarily,  not  in  submission  to  irresistible  force; 
and  He  took  it  up  again  as  freely  as  He  laid  it  down. 
St.  Peter  accordingly  taunts  the  murderers  of  Jesus 
not  only  with  tlu'  guilt  of  having  "denied  the  Holy 
One  and  the  Just,"  but,  in  addition,  with  the  folly 
and  paralogism  of  their  crime.  They  had  "killed 
the  Prince  of  life  " — in  other  words,  had  attempted 
an  absurd  impossibility ;  for  the  word  {upyyy^iiv) 
translated  "  Prince "  implies  origination,  authorship, 
rule.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  "  Your  folly  is  even 
greater  than  your  crime.  He  Whom  you  slew  is  the 
Source,  and  Author,  and  Ruler  of  life ;  and  had  you 
succeeded  in  bringing  Him  under  the  dominion  of 
death,  you  would  have  destroyed  th(i  life  of  the 
universe.  But  the  attempt  was  as  vain  as  it  was 
impious.  Death  could  not  have  held  him.  Tlie 
Fountain  of  life  could  not  have  been  drained  by 
death.  The  life  that  at  this  moment  pulsates  through 
the  spheres,  your  own  included,  demonstrates  the 
futility  of  your  foolish  and  wicked  purpose." 

To    believers    in    the    Incarnation,   therefore,   the 
Resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  logical,  tlie  inevitable 


I90  MORAL  NECESSITY,   DEMANDED 

sequel  of  His  Death  on  the  Cross.  "  I£  Christ  be  not 
raised,"  St.  Paul  says  truly,  "  then  is  our  preaching 
vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain.** 

But  there  was  also  a  moral  necessity  for  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  which  appeals  to  instincts 
wide  as  human  nature.  The  universal  heart  of  man 
revolts  against  death,  and  refuses  to  acquiesce  in  it  as 
the  goal  of  life.  And  this  is  true  especially  in  the 
case  of  those  we  love.  It  is  much  easier  to  face 
death  for  ourselves  than  for  them.  We  cannot  resign 
ourselves  without  the  agony  of  despair  to  the  belief 
that  we  shall  see  them  again  no  more  for  ever. 
Cicero  met  his  own  death  with  heroic  fortitude ; 
but  the  philosophy  of  consolation  which  appeared 
so  convincing  in  the  villa  at  Tusculum,  environed 
by  all  that  nature  and  art  could  do  to  make  life 
happy,  vanished  like  a  mirage  of  the  desert  when 
death  carried  off  his  TuUia.  And  so  it  will  ever  be. 
The  man  that  has  truly  loved  will  never,  unless  it 
be  in  the  aberration  of  despair,  accept  death  as  the 
final  solution  of  the  riddle  of  existence.  The  heart 
searches  for  its  vanished  kindred,  and  will  not  believe 
that  they  have  ceased  to  be,  or  that  its  interest  in 
them,  or  theirs  in  it  is  broken.  It  is  a  universal 
sentiment  of  humanity  that  has  survived  and  will 
survive  all  the  sophistries   of   speculation.     We  see 


BY   UXIVERSAL   IXSTIXCTS.  19I 

it  in  an  Old  Mortality  wandering  up  and  down  the 
country  to  restore  the  time-worn  tombstones  of  the 
Covenanters,  and  in  the  i^reat  orator  oi:  Athens,  who 
knew  the  spell  that  it  contained  wdien  he  electrified 
his  degenerate  countrymen  into  a  fitful  display  of 
patriotism  l>y  his  passionate  apostrophe  to  "  those  who 
died  at  IMarathon."  It  is  also  seen  in  those  legends 
of  many  lands  which  represent  some  hero  or  national 
benefactor  as  only  reposing  for  a  time  in  the  many 
mansions  of  the  dead  :  our  own  Arthur  still  w^aiting 
in  the  Vale  of  Avalon,  or  the  mighty  Barl)arossa 
sleeping  in  his  mystic  cave  till  his  country  shall  again 
need  his  trusty  sword. 

And  allied  with  this  feeling  of  invincible  reluctance 
to  surrender  our  iK'hjved  to  annihilation  is  the  instinct 
which  whispers  to  us  that  the  good  cannot  die.  We 
}iave  no  such  instinct  about  evil,  even  when  evil  is 
personified  in  human  lives.  Death  seems  no  more 
than  tlie  fitting  and  lasting  portion  of  men  who  live 
sensual,  selfish,  brutish  lives,  and  who  go  dow^n  into 
the  pit  with  characters  matured  and  rendered  incor- 
rigible by  long  habit.  But  w^e  instinctively  rebel 
ajiainst  the  doctrine  which  would  teach  as  that  the 
true,  the  noble,  the  unselfish  shall  be  vanquished  for 
good  and  all  by  death.  Our  moral  sense  refuses  to 
believe  that  lives  which  in  their  day  have  been  full  of 


192  THE   ORDER   OF  NATURE. 

loving  service,  or  brave  in  the  defence  and  promotion 
of  righteousness,  shall  themselves  descend,  never  ta 
return,  into  "  the  land  where  all  things  are  forgotten." 
Consider  Jesus  of  Nazareth  for  a  moment  only  as 
man;  a  homeless  wanderer  in  Judaea,  p'oinir  about 
doing  good  without  thought  of  reward  ;  healing  the 
sick,  cleansing  the  lepers,  curing  the  insane,  com- 
forting the  mourners,  raising  the  dead,  weeping  over 
the  grave  of  His  friend  before  restoring  him  to  his 
sisters ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  confronting  and  de- 
nouncing hypocrisy,  lying,  impurity,  cowardice,  op- 
pression, and  cruelty.  That  such  a  Life  should  be 
holden  permanently  by  death  we  feel  to  be  such  a 
moral  contradiction  that  our  natural  impulse  is  to 
reject  it  as  impossible.  And  physical  science  comes 
forward  to  ratify  this  dictate  of  our  moral  sense 
when  it  tells  us  that  the  fittest  must  survive.  Is 
there  any  kind  of  life  in  the  whole  universe  of  being- 
fitter  to  survive  than  His  ?  Well  might  the  Apostle 
say  that  "it  was  not  possible"  that  such  a  Life 
"'  should  be  holden  of "  death,  even  apart  from  the 
Divinity  which  encompassed  it. 

But  we  are  told  that  a  resurrection  from  tlie  dead, 
and  consequently  Christ's  Kesurrection,  is  unworthy 
of  credit :  first,  because  it  is  opposed  to  the  order  of 
Nature ;  secondly,  because  it  is  not  attested  by  suflScient 


ECCLESIASTICAL   MIRACLES.  193 

cvidcMice.     Lot  ur  nrlanco,  during  the  short  time  at  our 
disposal,  at  these  two  objections. 

1.  The  first  is  an  attack  on  the  belief  in  miracles  in 
general,  and  I  have  dealt  with  it  on  a  former  occasion. 
Something,  however,  may  profitably  be  added  here, 
and  I  will  begin  by  disengaging  the  defence  of  miracles 
from  an  argument  which  seems  to  me  at  once  unten- 
able and  mischievous ;  I  mean  the  distinction  sought 
to  be  established  betw^een  the  miracles  of  Scripture 
and  what  are  called  ecclesiastical  miracles.  Dr. 
Mozley,not  to  mention  other  great  names,  has  insisted 
on  that  distinction  in  one  of  his  brilliant  Bampton 
Lectures.  Now  I  have  no  objection  to  the  rejection 
of  any  or  all  of  the  ecclesiastical  miracles  after 
sufficient  examination  of  them  on  their  merits.  What 
I  object  to,  as  utterly  inadmissible  in  logic  and 
ruinous  as  a  matter  of  controversial  tactics,  is  the 
setting  up  of  an  arbitrary  line,  on  one  side  of  w^hich 
miracles  are  freely  accepted,  on  the  other  rigidly 
excluded.  Dr.  Mozlcy  lays  down  a  number  of  tests 
by  which,  as  he  thinks,  the  miracles  of  Scripture  may 
l>e  distinguished  from  all  others.  But  these  tests 
break  down  the  moment  they  are  confronted  with 
facts.  For  instance,  "  wildness,"  "puerile  extrava- 
gance," "  grotesqueness  and  absurdity,"  mark,  Dr. 
Mozley   says,   the   class   of   non-Scriptural    miracles. 

O 


194  ^^-  MOZ ley's   view  UNTENABLE 

This  is  true  of  many,  perhaps  of  most,  of  the 
ecclesiastical  miracles ;  but  it  is  by  no  means  true  of 
all.  On  the  other  hand.  Dr.  Mozley's  tests  have  been 
used  by  sceptical  writers  against  the  miracles  of  the 
Bible;  such  as  the  speaking  of  the  serpent  to  Eve, 
and  of  the  ass  to  Balaam;  the  transformation  of 
Moses's  rod  into  a  serpent  which  devoured  the  serpent- 
rods  of  the  Egyptians  and  then  became  a  rod  again ; 
the  destruction  of  the  children  who  mocked  Elisha; 
and  the  resurrection  of  a  corpse  which  had  after- 
wards accidentally  touched  that  prophet's  lifeless 
bones.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  what  looks  like 
extravagance  or  absurdity  cannot  be  admitted  as  a 
valid  test,  since  it  proves  too  much.  Dr.  Mozley, 
indeed,  endeavours  to  get  rid  of  this  objection  by 
contrasting  "the  quantity  and  proportion"  of  "mira- 
cles of  an  eccentric  type"  recorded  in  ecclesiastical 
history  with  those  of  the  same  class  related  in  the 
Bible.  But  this  is  to  forget  that  the  Bible  miracles 
are  in  reality  a  selection  out  of  a  large  mass  of 
allef>-ed  miracles.      Not  to  dwell  on  the  miracles  of 

o 

the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  which  are  wild  and  ex- 
travagant enough,  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
states  explicitly  that  the  miracles  recorded  by  him- 
self are  but  a  fractional  part  of  those  which  Jesus 
had  wrought.     On  the  other  hand,  a  selection  might 


I\  REASON  AND  POLICY.  195 

easily  be  made  of  post- Apostolic  miracles  wliich 
would  stand  all  Dr.  ^lozlcy's  tests.  It  would  be 
difficult,  for  example,  to  summon  a  witness  moi*e 
competent  in  every  way  to  give  satisfactory  evi- 
dence as  to  any  matter  which  fell  within  the  ran*.,^' 
of  his  own  observation  or  investigation  than  8t. 
Augustine  of  Hippo.  Now  St.  Augustine  bears  witness 
to  the  reality  of  several  miracles  which  were  alleged 
to  have  occurred  in  his  neighbourhood  during  liis 
lifetime  ;  and  he  declares,  in  particular,  that  he  beheld 
one  of  those  miracles  with  his  own  eyes.  Ambrose, 
Irenaeus,  and  other  great  names,  bear  similar  testi- 
mony ;  and  if  we  summarily  reject  their  evidence,  not 
on  its  merits,  but  merely  because  the  alleged  miracle 
comes  into  collision  with  some  arbitrary  assumption 
of  our  own,  we  shall  find  it  rather  difficult  to  make 
any  effiictive  answer  to  the  sceptic  who  proposes  to 
apply  our  canon  of  criticism  to  the  miracles  of  tlie 
Bible.  I  am  not  now  expressing  any  opinion  on  the 
credibility  of  ecclesiastical  miracles ;  I  am  only  point- 
ing out  the  danger  of  rejecting  them  in  the  lump 
without  investiiration,  in  obedience  to  an  arbitrarv 
test  which  proves  a  great  deal  too  much  for  believers 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  It  is  proverbially 
dangerous  to  play  with  edged  tools,  and  it  is  better  to 
admit  frankly  the  impossibility  of  laying  down  any 


196  MIRACLES  POSTULATE 

criteria  which  shall  include  all  the  Biblical  miracles 
and  exclude  all  the  ecclesiastical. 

I  have  said  on  a  previous  occasion  that  miracles  are 
not  in  any  way  a  violation  or  suspension  of  the  laws 
or  order  of  Nature  ;  and  I  will  now  add  that,  on  the 
contrary,  a  miracle  postulates  the  order  of  Nature  as 
its  correlate.  The  turning  of  water  into  wine  is  but 
the  acceleration  of  a  natural  process  wrought  by  a  Will 
that  has  power  over  Nature.  The  juice  of  the  grape 
is  water  transmuted  mysteriously  into  the  raw  material 
of  wine.  There  is  an  absence  of  apparent  means 
in  the  ordinary  process  as  well  as  in  the  miracle 
of  Cana ;  the  difference  is  only  one  of  degree.  Both 
transcend  the  skill  of  man,  and  both  rest  on  Nature  as 
a  basis.  To  turn  stones  into  bread  would  have  been 
a  violation  of  natural  order.  To  turn  water  into 
wine  was  in  harmony  with  natural  order.  St.  Mark,^ 
for  instance,  tells  us  that  our  Lord  "  could  do  no 
mighty  work "  in  "  His  own  country,"  because  the 
people  were  not  in  a  receptive  mood.  Does  not  that 
show  that  His  miracles  were  wrought  on  the  basis 
of  the  existinof  order  of  Nature  ?  He  neither  over- 
powered  nor  suspended  the  ordinary  laws  of  human 
nature,  and  the  free  will  of  man  could  thus  effectually 
bar  the  miraculous  energy  of  God  Incarnate.     When 

»  yi.  5. 


THE   ORDER   OF  NATURE,  197 

human  nature,  on  the  other  hand,  was  not  only  passive, 
but  energetically  susceptible  of  spiritual  intluences,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood,  it 
attracted  healing  virtue  from  the  Body  of  our  Lord. 

Dr.  Carpenter,  the  late  eminent  physiologist,  in  the 
course  of  an  elaborate  argument  against  the  evidential 
credibility  of  miracles,  gives  the  following  illustration, 
which  seems  to  me  to  tell  strongly  against  his  thesis  : — 

"Every  medical  man  of  large  experience  is  well 
aware  how  strongly  the  patient's  undoubting  faith  in 
the  efficacy  of  a  particular  remedy  or  mode  of  treat- 
ment assists  its  action ;  and  when  the  doctor  is 
himself  animated  by  such  a  faith,  he  has  the  more 
power  of  exciting  it  in  others.  A  simple  prediction, 
without  any  remedial  measure,  will  sometimes  work 
its  own  fulfilment.  Thus  Sir  James  Paget  tells  of  a 
case  in  which  he  strongly  impressed  a  woman  having 
a  sluggish,  non-malignant  tumour  in  the  breast,  that 
this  tumour  would  disperse  within  a  month  or  six 
weeks  ;  and  so  it  did.  He  perceived  this  patient's 
nature  to  be  one  on  which  the  assurance  would  act 
favourably;  and  no  one  could  more  earnestly  and 
effectively  enforce  it.  On  the  other  hand,  a  fixed 
belief  on  the  part  of  the  patient  that  a  mortal  disease 
has  seized  upon  the  frame,  or  that  a  particular  opera- 
tion or  system  of  treatment  will  prove  unsuccessful. 


198  DR.    carpenter's  OBJECTION- 

seems  in  numerous  instances   to  have  been  the  real 
occasion  of  the  fatal  result."  ^ 

Is  not  this  somewhat  akin  to  what  we  usually  mean 
by  a  miracle  ?  We  have  here  a  strong  will,  instinct 
with  faith,  acting  on  a  w^eaker  will,  and  through  that 
weaker  will  on  the  tissues  of  the  body,  and  either 
arresting  and  reversing  the  process  of  decomposition 
or  accelerating  the  process  of  recovery.  Is  this 
different  in  kind  or  only  in  degree  from  the  miracle 
performed  by  St.  Peter  when  he  said  to  the  lame  man 
at  the  Beautiful  Gate  of  the  Temple,  "  Look  on  us," 
and  then  commanded  him  to  "  rise  up  and  walk." 
"  And  immediately  his  feet  and  ankle  bones  received 
strength."  If  mere  human  will  can  thus  act  directly, 
as  Dr.  Carpenter  admits,  on  the  laws  of  health  and 
disease,  reversing  or  modifying  their  normal  action ; 
nay,  can  even  determine  the  issues  of  life  and  death ; 
may  not  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  be  only  a 
further  exemplification  of  the  same  power  at  a  more 
distant  stage  of  the  process  of  dissolution  ?  It  is 
observable  that  in  every  case  of  resurrection  our 
Lord  addressed  imperatively  the  spirit  that  had  left 
the  body.  The  daughter  of  Jairus  He  "  called,  saying, 
Maid,  arise."  To  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain  He 
said,  "  Young  man,  I  say  unto  thee.  Arise."    In  raising 

'  Nature  and  Man,  by  William  B.  Carpenter,  M.D.,  p.  257. 


UiXDERMIXES  HIS  ARGUMENT.  199 

Lazarus,  four  days  after  death,  "  He  cried  with  a  loud 
voice,  Lazarus,  conic  forth."  And  He  tells  us  of  an 
liour  when  "all  that  arc  in  the  grave  shall  hear  His 
voice,  and  shall  come  forth."  ^  Is  it  inconceivable 
that  this  final  summons  to  the  victims  of  dissolution 
is  but  an  example  on  a  grand  scale  of  the  power  which 
Sir  James  Paget  exercised  on  a  small  scale  in  the 
story  related  by  Dr.  Carpenter  ?  It  is  in  both  cases 
the  action  of  spirit  upon  matter.  The  adult  human 
body  is  but  a  minute  cell  gradually  magnified.  At 
death  it  is  dissolved  into  its  elements,  and  not  a  par- 
ticle of  the  body  that  is  buried  will  rise  again.  But 
the  vital  germ  remains,  and  will  clothe  itself  with  a 
spiritual  body  proper  to  it :  "  to  every  seed  its  own 
body."  Why  may  not  the  gradual  development  from 
an  embryonic  germ  to  adult  maturity,  which  is  the 
law  of  the  human  body  under  its  present  conditions, 
be  one  day  effected  by  a  sudden  transformation,  like 
the  change  of  water  into  wine  at  the  marriage  feast 
of  Cana  ?  In  point  of  mystery,  the  gradual  develop- 
ment of  an  organism  is  as  inexplicable  as  its  sudden 
transformation.  The  mystery  lies  in  the  hidden  cause, 
not  in  its  mode  of  action  (see  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52).  It  is 
obvious,  of  course,  that  the  Will  wdiich  could  restore 
life  to  others  could  resume  His  own  when  He  chose. 
»  St.  John  V.  28,  29. 


200  MIRACLES  AND  EVOLUTION. 

And,  after  all,  the  restoration  of  life  in  any  particular 
organism  is  less  incomprehensible  than  the  beginning 
of  life,  and  is  certainly  less  of  an  invasion  of  the  order 
of  Nature.  The  Power  which  has  achieved  the 
greater  cannot  be  baffled  by  the  less. 

But  belief  in  miracles  is  supposed  by  some  to  be 
incompatible  with  the  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of 
evolution.  Yet  the  simple  truth  is  that  the  doctrine 
of  evolution  has  sapped  the  ordinary  scientific  position 
of  the  denier  of  miracles.  For  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion implies  that  the  Creator  of  the  universe  is 
energetically  present  through  all  the  operations  of 
Nature.  If  this  world  were  a  machine  set  going  for  a 
certain  period  of  time,  the  result  would  be  constant 
and  invariable  efiects  following  from  constant  me- 
chanical causes.  But  evolution  has  to  do  with 
living  forms,  and  these  are,  ex  hypothesi,  infinitely 
variable..  Granting  that  protoplasm  is  chemically 
the  same  in  the  germ-cell  of  a  man  and  of  a  fish, 
this  only  makes  it  all  the  more  certain  that  a  pre- 
siding Mind  directs  and  shapes  the  very  different 
results.  But  if  we  admit  that  a  Supreme  Mind  is 
behind  the  framework  of  Nature,  directing  and  con- 
troUino-  her  forces,  we  shall  recognize  that  a  miracle 
is  only  an  instance  of  the  same  control  charged  with 
a  more  manifest  purpose.     The  will  of  God  acting  on 


NO  ANTECEDENT  OBJECTION.  201 

brute  matter  and  coiiipclling  its  obedience  is  not 
different  in  kind  from  the  will  of  man  energizing 
through  the  material  organism  of  the  body  ;  and  the 
one  is  no  more  than  the  other  a  violation  or  suspen- 
sion of  physical  law.  If  the  process  by  which  the 
loaves  were  multiplied  or  by  which  Lazarus  was 
restored  to  life  were  laid  bare,  a  man  of  science  might 
be  able  to  correlate  it  with  the  partially  revealed 
processes  which  are  daily  going  on  in  the  laboratory 
of  Nature.  In  short,  scientific  objection  to  miracles, 
if  we  are  to  use  language  with  strict  accuracy,  there 
can  be  none,  and  men  of  science  themselves,  who  are 
not  wedded  to  a  foregone  conclusion,  are  foremost  in 
making  the  admission.  Dr.  Carpenter,  for  example, 
in  his  assault  on  miracles,  on  the  ground  of  "fal- 
lacies of  testimony,"  makes  the  following  candid 
admission: — 

"  But  the  scientific  theist  who  regards  the  so-called 
*  laws  of  Nature '  as  nothing  else  than  man's  expres- 
sions of  so  much  of  the  Divine  order  as  it  lies  within 
his  power  to  discern,  and  who  looks  at  the  uninter- 
ruptedness  of  this  order  as  the  highest  evidence  of  its 
original  perfection,  would  find  (as  it  seems  to  me)  no 
abstract  difficulty  in  the  conception  that  the  Author 
of  Nature  can,  if  He  will,  occasionally  depart  from 
it.     And  hence,  as  I  deem  it  presumptuous  to  deny 


202  ATTACK  ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION 

that  there  miorht  be  occasions  which  in  His  wisdom 
may  require  such  departure,  I  am  not  conscious  of 
any  such  scientij&c  *  prepossession '  against  miracles  as 
would  prevent  me  from  accepting  them  as  facts,  if 
trustworthy  evidence  of  their  reality  could  be  adduced. 
The  question  with  me,  therefore,  is  simply :  *  Have 
we  any  adequate  historical  ground  for  the  belief  that 
such  departure  has  ever  taken  place  ? '"  ^ 

We  may  accept  this  as  a  perfectly  fair  way  of 
stating  the  problem.  Let  us  then  consider  briefly  the 
leading  objections  to  the  credibility  of  our  Lord's 
Resurrection  on  the  ground  of  deficiency  of  evidence- 
Dr.  Carpenter's  incredulity  rests  almost  entirely  on 
the  argument  of  prepossession,  which  he  illustrates 
mainly  from  epidemics  of  credulity,  such  as  the  various 
alleged  phenomena  of  "  spiritualism."  This  argument 
is  also  the  fulcrum  of  the  scepticism  of  the  Squire  in 
"  Robert  Elsmere."  Robert  Elsmere's  faith  gives  way 
under  the  pressure  of  the  Squire's  assurance  that 
prepossession  in  favour  of  miracles  in  the  time  of 
Christ  "governed  the  work  of  all  men  of  all  schools." 
Well  may  Mr.  Gladstone  characterize  this  as  "  a  most 
gross  and  palpable  exaggeration.  In  philosophy  the 
Epicurean  school  was  atheistic,  the  Stoic  school  was 
ambiguously    theistic,    and    doubt    nestled     in    the 

*  Nature  and  Man,  p.  241. 


FOR  ALLEGED  DEEEC7IVE   EVIDENCE.  203 

Academy.  Christianity  had  little  direct  contact  with 
these  schools,  but  they  acted  on  the  tone  of  thought 
in  a  manner  not  favourable  but  adverse  to  the  pre- 
conception. .  .  .  The  age  was  not  an  age  of  faitli, 
amonnf  thinkinir  and  rulinof  classes,  either  in  natural 
or  in  supernatural  religion."  ^  When  "  certain  of  the 
philosophers  of  the  Epicureans  and  of  the  Stoics 
encountered  "  St.  Paul  in  Athens,  they  derided  him  as 
a  "  babbler,"  and  "  a  setter  forth  of  strange  gods, 
l)ecause  he  preached  unto  them  Jesus  and  the  Resur- 
rection."^ Ajid  they  listened  attentively  to  his  dis- 
course before  the  Areopagus  till  they  "  heard  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead ; "  and  then  "  some  mocked," 
while  the  more  courteous  veiled  their  scepticism  in 
the  polite  or  perhaps  scornful  promise  to  "  hear  him 
again  concerning  this."  It  is  evident,  moreover,  from 
St.  Paul's  chapter  on  the  resurrection  in  his  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  that  he  found  that  doctrine 
to  be  the  great  stumbling-block  to  the  acceptance  of 
Christianity.  The  eulogistic  biographer  of  Apollonius 
of  Tyana  is  so  well  aware  of  this  prejudice  against 
the  doctrine,  that,  although  he  credits  Apollonius  with 
superhuman  endowments,  he  is  careful  to  insinuate 

>  *'  Rohert  E/smere  and  the  Battle  of  Belief,"  li\neieer\ih.  Century  for 
Mtiy,  1888,  p.  775. 
*  Acta  xvii.  18,  32. 


204  OBJECTIONS  EXAMINED. 

that  the  only  case  of  resurrection  attributed  to  him 
was  probably  no  resurrection  at  all,  but  only  a  trance, 
"  a  seeming  death."  ^  He  evidently  suspected  that  the 
ascription  of  such  a  miracle  to  his  hero  would  preju- 
dice the  public  mind  against  the  rest  of  his  narrative. 
So  far  was  the  disposition  of  the  early  ages  of  Chris- 
tianity from  belief  in  a  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
And  it  is  obvious  that  if  that  miracle  is  established, 
the  testimony  is  more  than  sufficient  to  carry  all  the 
other  miracles  of  the  Gospel. 

But  was  the  Jewish  mind  prepared  for  such  a 
resurrection  as  that  of  our  Lord  ?  Clearly  not.  A 
powerful  party  rejected  the  doctrine  altogether,  and 
those  who  accepted  it  limited  their  belief  to  a  general 
resurrection  at  the  Last  Day.  We  see  this  in  the 
answer  of  Martha  to  our  Lord  when  He  said,  "  Thy 
brother  shall  rise  again."  "  I  know  that  he  shall  rise 
aofain,"  she  answered,  "  in  the  resurrection  at  the  Last 
Day."  And  so  far  were  our  Lord's  immediate  followers 
from  being  in  a  frame  of  mind  favourable  to  belief  in 
His  Resurrection,  that  the  very  opposite  is  the  fact. 
He  tried,  but  failed,  to  prepare  their  minds  for  it. 
Even  after  the  Resurrection  they  were  slow  to  believe 

»  Cardinal  Newman's  Historical  Sketches,  pp.  325,  326.  Douglas 
(Criterion,  p.  387)  observes  that  some  heretics  affirmed  that  our 
Lord  rose  from  the  dead,  (pavTaaluScos,  only  in  appearance,  from  an 
idea  of  the  impossihility  of  a  resurrectiOTU 


ALLEGED   FREPOSSESSION.  205 

it.  The  two  disciples  on  their  way  to  Emmaus  told 
their  unrecoirnized  Master  that  the  women  who  had 
visited  the  empty  tomb  had  made  the  "company"  of 
the  disciples  "  astonished  "  by  announcing  His  Resur- 
rection on  the  authority  of  angels.  And  Himself 
upbraided  them  for  their  unbelief :  "  0  fools,  and  slow 
of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken : 
ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  to 
enter  into  His  glory  ? " 

And  if  they  were  not  prepared  for  His  Resurrection 
at  all,  still  less  were  they  prepared  for  the  kind  of 
resurrection  which  they  immediately  began  to  preach. 
It  was  unique.  There  was  no  precedent  for  it,  nothing 
to  suggest  it,  in  their  sacred  writings  or  national  tradi- 
tions. The  few  examples  of  previous  resurrections  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  their  own  experience  were 
simply  returns  to  the  previous  life  in  all  particulars, 
and  they  were,  after  all,  only  reprieves  :  the  restored 
victims  of  death  had  to  succumb  again  to  the  in- 
evitable doom  of  mortal  man.  But  Christ  rose  to  die 
no  more.  "Death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  Him" 
is  the  triumphant  keynote  of  the  Apostolic  message  to 
mankind.  Nor  was  this  all.  His  Body  had  undergone 
a  mysterious  change.  It  was  no  longer  subject  to  the 
laws  of  matter.  It  appeared  and  disappeared  suddenly, 
ruirardless  of  material  barriers,  and  assumed  dili'crent 


2o6  CIRCUMSTANTIAL  EVIDENCE. 

forms/  not  always  recognizable.^  Whether  the  sceptic, 
then,  regards  our  Lord's  disciples  as  deliberate  deceivers 
or  as  self-deceived,  in  either  case  it  is  against  all  reason 
and  analogy  that  they  should  have  invented  an  entirely 
novel  and  unheard-of  resurrection  for  their  Master 
Their  prime  object  was  to  make  converts,  and  they 
would  surely  not  have  gone  out  of  their  way  to  make 
the  cardinal  article  of  the  new  religion  harder  of 
belief  than  it  need  have  been. 

»  St.  Mark  xvi.  12. 

*  St.  Luke  xxiv,  16  ;  St.  John  xxi.  4, 12.  We  have  here  a  touch  of 
nature  which  betokens  personal  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  nar- 
rator. "  And  none  of  the  disciples  durst  ask  Him,  Who  art  Thou  ? 
knowing  that  it  was  the  Lord."  He  was  evidently  different  in  out- 
ward  form  from  the  Jesus  of  other  days ;  yet  they  had  an  intuitive 
perception  that  it  was  He,  though  they  still  longed,  with  the  pathetic 
nervousness  of  profound  love,  to  have  their  lingering  doubt  dissipated, 
but  were  afraid  to  ask  Him.  That  little  detail  was  never  the  inven. 
tion  either  of  fraud  or  of  enthusiastic  prepossession.  See  also  St. 
Luke  xxiv.  36-41.  On  one  of  His  sudden  apparitions  to  His  disciples 
"  they  were  terrified  and  affrighted,  and  supposed  that  they  had  seen 
a  spirit.  And  He  said  unto  them,  Why  are  ye  troubled  ?  and  why 
do  thoughts  arise  in  your  hearts  ?  Behold  My  hands  and  My  feet, 
that  it  is  I  Myself  :  handle  Me,  and  see  ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones,  as  ye  see  Me  have.  And  when  He  had  thus  spoken,  He  showed 
them  His  hands  and  His  feet."  The  evidence  satisfied  their  reason. 
Nevertheless  "  they  yet  believed  not  for  joy,  and  wondered."  How 
natural  this  is  !  The  heart,  from  the  very  depth  and  intensity  of  its 
love,  is  prone  to  lag  behind  the  intellect  in  believing  what  it  pas- 
sionately longs  to  believe.  It  is  incredulous  from  the  ecstasy  of  its 
joy.  This  is  an  incident  which  it  would  not  have  occurred  to  a  forger 
or  a  fanatic  to  invent.  The  impugners  of  the  Resurrection  pass  by 
a  multitude  of  these  links  of  circumstantial  evidence. 


CUMULATIVE  EVIDENCE.  207 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  discuss,  even  if  there  were 
time,  other  objections  that  have  been  advanced  against 
our  Lord's  Resurrection,  for  the  cumulative  evidence  for 
it  is  overwhehninfT.  The  Christian  Church  is  a  livinj; 
demonstration  of  it.  Its  existence  is  inconcciv^able 
apart  from  the  Resurrection.  Why  the  cliange  fronv 
the  last  day  of  the  week  to  the  first,  which  is  coeval 
with  Christianity  ?  Why  Easter  Day,  which  is  also 
as  old  as  Christianity  ?  Why  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  always  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  ? 
Why  the  name  "  Lord's  Day,"  which  dates  from  the 
New  Testament?  It  is  undeniable  that  the  first 
teachers  of  Christianity  put  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus 
in  the  forefront  of  their  preaching,  and  it  is  equally 
undeniable  that  the  challenge  was  not  taken  up. 
Their  Jewish  adversaries  did  not  seriously  question 
the  fact.  Why  did  they  make  no  serious  attempt 
to  substantiate  the  story  put  into  the  mouths  of  the 
Roman  guard  ?  Even  if  we  were  to  give  up  the  Gospel 
narrative  altogether  as  the  product  of  a  later  age,^  we 

*  The  accomplished  author  of  Supernatural  Relvjion  Bays  boldly 
that  he  "  has  not  found  a  single  trace  of  any  of  those  [Synoptic] 
Gospels  during  the  first  century  and  a  half  after  the  death  of  Christ." 
Tiiis  is  a  strong  statement.  Let  us  try  it  by  one  crucial  test.  St. 
Polycarp  was  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  Ircnajus,  who  know  him 
personally,  has  left  us  a  most  grapliic  description  of  him,  mentioning, 
among  other  interesting  details,  Polycarp's  "  familiar  intercourse 
with  John,  as  be  was  accustomed  to  tell,  as  also  his  familiaiity  with 


208  ST.  PAUL  AND  ST.  PETER 

have  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  Galatians, 
and  Romans ;  and  I  believe  that  no  reputable 
authority  anywhere  can  be  cited  in  favour  of  bringing 
any  of  these  down  to  a  date  later  than  a.d.  60.  Now 
in  all  these  Epistles  the  literal  facts  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion and  Ascension  are  either  taken  for  granted  or 
emphatically  affirmed.  And  in  one  of  them  the 
Apostle  asserts  that  Christ  was  seen  after  His 
Resurrection,  not  only  by  all  the  Apostles,  but  by 
"above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  of  whom  the 
greater  part  remain  unto  this  present."  The  first 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter  is  also  admitted,  even  by  hostile 

those  -who  had  seen  the  Lord."  Now  St.  Poljcarp  has  left  an 
Epistle,  written  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  centnry,  in  which 
there  are  quotations  from  the  Gospels  so  nearly  literal  that  the 
ingenuity  of  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  has  failed  to  discredit 
them.  Ind-aed,  there  is  one  chapter  in  the  epistle  which  is  simply  a 
mosaic  of  quotations  from  several  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  from  St. 
Peter,  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  from  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  and  from  the  Book  of  Psalms;  but  there  is  hardly  any 
of  the  quotations  verbally  accurate  throughout.  He  evidently 
quoted  from  memory,  as  writers  of  that  day  were  wont  to  do,  and  it 
is  uncritical  to  contend  that  the  passages  are  not  quotations  at  all 
because  there  are  slight  variations  between  them  and  the  originals. 
Such  style  of  criticism  would  make  sad  havoc  of  contemporary 
history  even  among  ourselves,  for  accurate  quotation  is  still  a  rare 
virtue.  We  have,  moreover,  the  testimony  of  Irenseus,  the  authen- 
ticity  of  whose  work  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  does  not 
dispute,  that  he  heard  Polycarp  conversing  "  concerning  His  [Christ's] 
miracles  and  His  doctrine  "  "  in  consistency  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
as  he  (Polycarp)  had  received  them  from  the  eye-witnesses  of  the 
doctrine  of  Salvation." 


ox  THE   RESrKf:f:CT/OX.  209 

critics,  to  be  fjonuiiic,  und  it  boiU's  uiKiiu'stiuiuLljlf  ti-sti- 
iiiony  to  the  fact  of  Christ's  Resurrection.  We  must 
therefore  accept  the  evidence  of  St.  I'iiul  juhI  St. 
Peter  at  least  so  far  as  tins:  that  lu'licf  in  Christ's 
Resurrection  and  Ascension  -svas  univt'rsal  in  th(i 
Christian  Church  wliile  the  majority  of  His  followers 
and  Jewish  contemporaries  were  alivc^  and  ahle  to 
expose  fraud  or  <lelusion,  if  it  were  possililc  How, 
too,  shall  we  account  for  the  extraordinary  cliango 
which  passed  over  the  characters  of  Christ's  disciples 
after  His  Resurrections'  They  are  different  men  from 
the  timid  peasants  whom  we  knew  before.  A  nrw 
spirit  is  breathed  into  them,  and  tliey  bceonn'  ntw 
men.  Nor  does  the  testimony  of  early  Christian 
writers  stand  alone.  Pliny,  describing  in  an  official 
letter  to  Trajan  the  habits  of  the  Christians  of 
Bithynia,  after  personal  investigation,  mentions,  amoni;' 
<»ther  things,  their  early  sacramental  worship  on  tlic 
lirst  day  of  the  week,  when  they  were  accustomed  to 
"  sing  a  hymn  to  Christ  rrs  God" 

To  sum  up,  then,  in  very  few  words.  Oui-  Lr.rds 
Resurrection  stands  the  test  of  the  utmost  scrutiny 
alike  on  the  part  of  science  and  of  historic  evidence. 
Antecedent  objection  is  out  of  the  question.  The  Powei* 
which  has  created  life  is,  a  fortiori,  able  to  restore  it 
in   any   of   its   individual    forms.       By    a   mii-acle   I 

P 


2IO  HUME'S  FORMULA  FATAL 

understand  an  effect  produced  by  invisible  agency  in 
a  manner  not  explicable  by  any  known  force  or  law 
of  Nature.  Before,  therefore,  we  are  entitled  to  deny 
the  credibility  of  miracles,  on  the  ground  of  their 
beincr  a  violation  of  natural  order,  we  must  be  in  a 
position  to  affirm  two  propositions  which  are  certainly 
incapable  of  proof,  namely,  that  there  are  no  latent 
forces  in  nature,  unknown  to  us,  able  under 
intelligent  control  to  produce  a  miracle ;  secondly, 
that  there  is  no  personal  intelligence  outside  of  Nature 
able  to  control  her  hidden  forces. 

The  evidential  argument  against  miracles  has  really 
not  advanced  beyond  Hume's  famous  dogma,  that  it 
is  more  probable  that  testimony  should  be  false  than 
that  such  a  violation  of  experience  as  a  miracle 
implies  should  be  true.  The  objection  is  specious, 
but  untenable.  It  has  been  overthrown  repeatedly 
by  the  progress  of  physical  science.  Let  us  take  one 
or  two  examples.  Alternate  generation,  fertilization 
"per  saltiiiii  for  several  generations,  hermaphroditism 
— all  these  are  scientific  facts,  yet  are  opposed  to  the 
inductions  of  experience  down  to  our  own  time. 
Suppose  Hume  had  been  told  that  there  were  creatures 
w^hich  at  pleasure  threw  off  a  limb,  that  this  limb 
forthwith  began  an  independent  existence,  and  by- 
and-by  impregnated  a  female  of  the  same  species,  he 


TO  SCIKXTiriC  DISCOVERIES.  21  r 

\\.)ul<l  liavo  rel'iitcil  the  story  at  once  by  his  destruc- 
tive formula  an^ainst  miracles.  It  was  contrary  to 
experience  down  to  his  time.  It  is  now  proved  hy 
such  evidence  as  wouM  liavc  satisfied  Hume  himself. 
}Uit  the  point  is  that  it  was  as  true  when  Hume  wrote 
as  it  is  now.  Yet  his  argument  would  then  have 
disproved  it  absolutely,  and  would  even  have  forbidden 
inquiry.  In  like  manner  we  may  liercaftcr  be  al)le 
to  perceive  that  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  is  an 
(operation  as  susceptible  of  explanation  as  some  of 
tliose  secrets  of  Nature  which  would  have  appeared 
miraculous  to  our  forefathers.  We  must  always 
remember  that  our  knowledge  of  the  forces  of  Nature 
is  extremely  limited — a  fact  which  the  progress  of 
physical  science  makes  more  manifest  every  year. 
"  There  is  always  a  probability,"  as  the  late  Professor 
Jevons  observes,  ''of  causes  being  in  existence  without 
our  knowledge;  and  these  may  at  any  moment 
produce  an  unexpected  effect."  And  he  gives  the 
following  illustration : — 

"  We  can  imagine  reasoning  creatures  dwelling  in  a 
world  where  the  atmosphere  was  a  mixture  of  oxygen 
and  inflannnable  gas,  like  the  firedamp  of  coal  mines. 
If  devoid  of  lire,  they  might  have  lived  on  for  long 
ages  in  complete  unconsciousness  of  the  tremendous 
forces  which  a  single  spark  could  call  into  play,     ^w 


212  FALLACY  OF  DEMANDING 

the  twinkling  of  an  e^^e  new  laws  might  have  come 
into  action,  and  the  poor  reasoning  creatures,  who 
were  so  confident  of  their  knowledge  of  the  uniform 
conditions  of  their  world,  might  have  had  no  time  to 
speculate  upon  the  overthrow  of  all  their  theories. 
Can  we,  witli  our  finite  knowledge,  be  sure  that  such 
an  overtlirow  of  our  theories  is  impossible  ? "  ^ 

The  trutli  is  that  controversialists  are  far  too  prone 
to  the  logical  fallac}^  against  which  Aristotle  warns 
us  —  that,  namely,  of  demanding  evidence  other 
than  is  suitable  to  the  subject-matter  in  dispute.* 
To  any  one  who  considers  the  matter  dispassionately,, 
the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  I  venture  to  think,  will 
appear  to  rest  on  evidence  as  irrefragable  as  the 
assassination  of  Julius  Caesar.  In  neither  case  is 
mathematical  proof  possible,  nor  would  it  in  either 
case  be  reasonable  to  demand  it.  Christianity  is  not 
a  speculative  philosophy,  but  a  religion  for  the 
guidance  of  human  conduct  and  the  regeneration  of 
human  nature  ;  and  certainly  it  demands  faith  in  its 
professors.  But  what  practical  system  that  has  to  do 
with  conduct  does  not  ?  Trace  to  its  last  analysis  the 
evidence  on  which  repose  the  sanctities  of  domestic 
life,  the  inheritance   of   property,  the   right  of   our 

*  Principles  of  Science^  ii.  p.  443. 

'  Ethics,  bk.  i.  c.  iii.  §  4,  5;  bk.  ii.  c.  ii.  §  3. 


UNREASONABLE  EVIDENCE.  213 

gracious  Queen  to  tlie  tlirone  wliieli  slir  .i.ldrns, 
and  you  will  lind  yuurselNcs  liroui^ht  to  hjiy  hy  nii 
objection  wliich  is  iVoni  a  lei;al  point  of  \  iew  \ni- 
answcrablo,  namely,  tliat  the  evidence  is  of  a  kind 
^vllicIl  cannot  be  tested.  The  whole  edifice  rests  in 
every  case  on  tlie  uncontirnicd  veracity  of  a  singh; 
■woman.  Yes!  the  riglit  to  every  title  aiul  pro- 
perty in  the  land  rests  on  no  otliei-  foundation  tlian 
<nu'  belief  in  tlie  chastity  and  truthfulness  of  the 
mothers  of  Encrland.  So  true  is  it,  as  Bishijp  i^utler 
says,  that  "probal)ility  is  the  guide  of  life."  The 
probability  f<jr  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  is 
historically  so  overwhelming  that  much  more  is 
needed  to  upset  it  than  the  guesswin-k  theories, 
for  the  most  part  mutually  destructive,  which  liave 
been  directed  against  it  during  its  long  and  diNcr- 
sitied  career.  The  existence  of  Christianity,  with  its 
marvellous  history  and  beneficent  influence  <ai  man- 
kind, is  a  standing  attestation  of  the  Resurrection 
of  Jesus.  Rob  it  of  its  miraculous  origin,  and 
Christianity  itself  becomes  a  miracle  wliich  has  to 
be  iiccpunted  for.  It  stands  absolutely  alone  in  the 
history  of  religions.  Putting  aside  other  considera- 
tions of  great  importance,  the  whole  organization  of 
Christianity,  its  sacraments,  its  discipline,  its  ritual, 
are  all  based  upon  belief  in  our  Lord's  Resurrection 


214  JESUS  DIVINE   OR  IMPOSSIBLE. 

and  Ascension  as  fundamental  facts  and  theoloorical 
axioms.  I  submit  therefore  that  those  who  reject 
the  Resurrection  (of  which  the  Ascension  is  an  in- 
evitable consequence)  are  bound  to  explain  the  genesis 
of  the  Christian  Church.  Abolish  belief  in  the  Eesur- 
rection,  and  the  Christian  Church  becomes  an  effect 
without  a  cause.^  Moreover,  if  the  Gospel  narrative 
is  not  true,  the  portraiture  of  such  a  character  as  that 
of  Jesus  stands  alone  in  the  literature  of  mankind 
It  is  a  perfect  character.  There  is  nothing  approach- 
ing to  it  in  history  or  romance.  To  have  imagined 
such  a  character  and  sustained  it  to  the  end  would  in 
itself  be  little  short  of  miraculous.  Yet  this  is  what 
we  find  in  the  story  of  tlic  four  Evangelists.  Then 
consider  the  theology  and  ethics  of  the  Christian 
Church — so  immeasurably  superior  to  all  previous 
systems  and  polities.  That  this  should  have  been 
conceived  by  a  Galilean  peasant  and  launched  upon 
the  world  Avith  perfect  confidence  as  to  its  success  is 
incredible. 

^  To  save  myself  from  a  chance  accusation  of  plagiarism,  I  had 
better  state  that  the  substance  of  this  Lecture  appeared  partly  in 
a  review  of  Supernatural  Religion  in  Fraser's  Magazine  of  September, 
187-1',  and  partly  in  an  article  on  The  Rationale  of  Miracles  iu  the 
Saturday  Review  of  April  29,  1S7G,  both  written  by  myself. 


"And  ascended  into  Heaven." 

CIIRlSrS  RESi'RKECTION 

Our  Lord's  Ascension  is  tlio  nccossaiy  sequL-l  to  His 
llosiUTcction.  All  wlio  had  previously  been  restored 
to  life  merely  returned  to  their  former  natural  con- 
dition. It  was  a  respite,  not  a  deliverance.  But 
Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  "no  more  to  return  to 
corruption."  ^  He  was  no  longer  subject  to  the  known 
laws  of  the  visible  universe.  Physical  barriers  ceased 
to  exist  for  Him.  He  appeared  in  a  room  suddenly, 
and  as   suddenly  vanished,  "the  doors  being  shut."^ 

'  Acts  xiil.  31. 

^  Attempts,  whicli  apprnr  to  mo  as  deficient  iu  revcreucc  as  iti 
l«hiloso]ihy,  have  been  niado  by  Cliristian  apolo<j:ists  to  explain  away 
the  essential  properties  of  our  Lord's  spiritual  Body.  Tho  late  Dr. 
Yogan,  for  example  {The  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  pp.  55S-5GO), 
believed  that  our  Lord's  sudden  trausitions  from  tho  invisible  to  tho 
visible,  and  vice  versa,  were  miraculous ;  but  ho  argues  seriously  that 
the  subject  of  tho  miracle  was  not  Christ's  Cody,  but  tho  closed  door 
and  tho  circumambient  air.  "  Wo  can  suppose,"  ho  says,  "that  by 
His  Divino  power  tlio  doors  opened  of  their  own  accord  ft)r  His 
admission."     "  A  body  -will  disappear  to  one  if  tho  rays  of  light  from 


2i6  INVOLVES  ins  ASCENSION, 

Distance  offered  no  impediment  to  His  knowledge  or 
to  His  presence.  He  heard  the  conversation  of  the 
sorrowing  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus,  and 
immediately  joined  them.  And  when  "their  eyes 
were  opened,  and  they  knew  Him,  He  vanished  out 
of  their  sight."  ^     In  short.   His  humanity  now  be- 

it  be  intercepted,  or  if  he  will  even  close  his  eyes.  And  He  who 
could  still  the  raging  sea,  could  also  change  or  suspend  the  properties 
of  the  air,  so  as  to  prevent  His  Person  being  seen  through  it"! 
What  is  gained  by  criticism  of  this  sort  ?  The  explanation 
which  I  have  ventured  to  suggest  in  the  text  is  in  harmony  witli 
tlie  established  facts  of  science ;  Dr.  Vegan's  is  in  direct  collision 
with  them,  and  requires,  moreover,  a  series  of  violent  and  totally 
gratuitous  assumptions.  B.q.^  how  did  our  Lord  pass  from  place  to 
place?  If  His  Body  was  still  subject  to  the  laws  of  Nature  He  must 
have  proceeded  by  ordinary  locomotion,  remaining  visible  as  before 
His  Death,  but  "changing  the  properties  of  the  air"  as  He  went 
along,  so  that  mortal  eyes  should  not  behold  Him.  And  how  did  Ho 
ascend  into  heaven?  Dr.  Vegan's  reasoning  would  compel  us  to 
believe  that  **  the  properties  of  the  air "  were  "  changed  or  sus- 
pended" in  order  to  enable  our  Lord's  Body  to  mount  through  space 
against  the  force  of  gravity.  An  explanation  which  is  infinitely 
harder  to  believe  than  the  thing  to  be  explained  is  surely  an  exercise 
of  perverse  folly. 

'  Literally,  ''He  ceased  to  be  seen  by  them;"  implying  that  His 
appearances  and  disappearances  were  not  by  way  of  locomotion,  but 
by  His  acting  or  ceasing  to  act  on  their  visual  organs.  How  this 
might  have  happened  in  perfect  consistency  with  scientific  facts  I 
have  endeavoured  to  explain  in  the  text.  It  is  significant  that 
nearly  all  the  apparitions  of  spiritual  beings  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  including  our  Lord's  appearances  after  His  Resurrection, 
are  described  by  a  verb  which  strictly  means  "  became  visible."  "E.g., 
Moses  and  Elijah  "became  visible"  (axpdrja-av)  to  the  three  disciples 
on  the  llount  of  Transfiguration  (St.  Matt,  xvii.  3) ;  St.  Mark  saya 


TJIK  SPIRITUAL    WORLD  2f7 

lonfjcd  normally  to  the  spiritual  woild.  as  it  liad 
I»reviously  done  to  the  natural,  and  could  not  Ix' 
^ipprehended  by  man's  ordinary  senses.  )^'^  His 
Ascension,  therefore,  wc  mean  His  definite  retirement 
into  tlie  spiritual  world.  But  where  is  the  spiritual 
world  into  which  He  ascended  ?  Let  us  see  what  the 
Bible  lias  to  say  upon  the  subject,  and  then  compare 
its  revelations  with  those  of  physical  science. 

If  we  are  to  believe  the  Bible,  the  spiritual  world 
is  not  a  region  far  away  in  space,  but  a  higher  plane 
of  being,  permeating  the  natural  world  and  requiring 
spiritual  faculties  to  apprehend  it.  We  are  thus  in 
the  condition  of  a  man  born  deaf  and  blind  into  this 
world  of  solid  matter.  He  is  in  the  midst  of  two 
worlds  of  which  he  knows  next  to  nothino- — the  worlds 
<jf  form  and  colour,  and  of  melodious  and  harmonious 
sounds.  For  him  the  abounding  beauties  of  Xature 
<lo  not  exist.  He  cannot  reach  them  by  travelling 
through  space.  He  might  visit  ever}-  world  in  the 
visible  universe    in   search    of    them,  but  his  search 

(ix.  4),  d;(/>07]  auTo7s  'HKlas  (tvv  Mucre?;  St.  Lake  (ix.  31)  describes 
Moses  and  Elijah  as  dcpdevrts  tV  56^t).  The  same  verb  is  used  to 
describe  the  appearance  of  the  angel  to  Zecharias  iu  tlio  Tomjdo 
(St.  Luke  i.  11);  of  the  angel  which  "strengthened"  Jesus  in 
(lethsemano  (St.  Luke  xxii.  43)  j  of  our  Lord  to  Peter  (St.  Lnko 
xxiv.  34) ;  of  God  to  Abraham  (Acts  vii.  2) ;  of  Jesus  to  Saul  (Acts 
ix.  17,  and  xxvi.  IG). 


2i8  NOT  MEASURED  BY  DISTANCE. 

would  be  in  vain,  because  what  he  needs  is  not  fi. 
change  in  his  surroundings  but  a  change  in  himself. 
Open  his  eyes  and  ears,  and  then,  without  any  change 
of  place,  he  finds  himself  introduced  into  the  worlds 
which  he  had  sought  in  vain  by  changing  his  en- 
vironment. A  change  in  his  own  organism  was  all 
that  was  required 

This  is  the  kind  of  relation  in  which  H0I3'  Scripture 
represents  us  as  standing  towards  the  spiritual  world. 
Let  us  take  a  few  instances. 

When  Elijah  was  about  to  leave  the  earth  and 
Elisha  prayed  for  "  a  double  portion  of  the  spirit "  of 
his  departing  master,  the  latter  answered,  "  Thou  hast 
asked  a  hard  thing :  nevertheless,  //  thou  see  rue 
when  I  am  taken  from  thee,  it  shall  be  so  unto  thee  ; 
but  if  not,  it  shall  not  be  so."  Wliat  did  the  prophet 
mean  by  "  if  thou  see  me  when  I  am  taken  from 
thee "  ?  Surely  this :  that  if  Elisha  was  able  to  see 
the  spiritual  transformation  which  his  master  was 
about  to  undergo,  that  would  in  itself  be  a  sufficient 
proof  to  him  that  spiritual  organs  were  opened  within 
him  which  would  place  him  in  communication  with 
the  spiritual  world.  Elisha  did  see  the  translation  of 
his  master,  and  found  himself  at  once  endowed  with 
powers  beyond  the  reach  of  man's  ordinar}-  faculties, 
including  the  gift  of  seership,  which  enabled  him  to 


SCRIPTURAL   ILLUSTRATIONS.  zxy 

reveal  to  his  sovereign  the  secret  counsels  ot*  tlio 
King  of  Syria,  wlio  consequently  sent  an  ariuy  to 
arrest  liini.  "Andwlicii  tlio  servant  of  Ww.  man  oi: 
God  was  risen  early,  and  gone  forth,  behold,  an  host 
encompassed  the  city  both  witli  horses  and  cliariots. 
And  his  servant  said  unto  him,  Alas,  my  master !  how 
shall  we  do?  And  he  answered.  Fear  not:  for  tli(\>' 
that  be  with  us  are  more  tlian  tlu  y  that  b(^  v/ith 
them.  And  Elisha  prayed,  and  said.  Lord,  I  pray 
Thee,  open  his  eyes,  that  he  may  see.  And  the  Lord 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  j^oung  man  ;  and  he  saw  :  and, 
behold,  the  mountain  was  full  of  horses  and  chariots 
of  tire  round  about  Elisha."  ^ 

It  is  evident  that  the  prophet's  s(»rvant  was  for 
the  moment  endowed  with  liis  master's  preternatural 
vision.  His  bodily  eyes,  in  their  normal  condition, 
saw  only  the  Syrian  liost.  Li  answer  totlie  prophet's 
])rayer.  the  young  man's  sight  was  so  etherealized 
tliat  lit'  was  able  to  see  the  spiritual  host  tliafc 
encompassed  his  master. 

In  St.  Luke's  GospeP  we  read — "Now  wlien  all 
the  people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pass  that  Jesus 
also  being  baptized  and  praying,  tlu;  heaven  was 
ojii'ued,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily 
shape  like  a  dove  upon  Him,  and  a  voie<'  came  from 
»  2  Kings  vi.  15-17.  *  iii.  lil,  22. 


220  EXPLANATION  OF  SOME 

heaven,  which  said,  Thou  art  My  beloved  Son ;  in  Thee 
I  am  well  pleased."  In  St.  Matthew's  account  the 
•expression  is,  "  The  heavens  were  opened  unto  Hun." 
The  heaven  that  was  thus  opened  was  clearly  not  a 
■distant  region,  but  a  state  of  being  close  at  hand, 
which  could  only  be  spiritually  discerned. 

Another  incident  of  similar  import  in  our  Lord's 
life  is  related  in  St.  John's  Gospel:^  "Now  is  my 
soul  troubled ;  and  what  shall  I  say  ?  Father,  save 
Me  from  this  Jiour  :  but  for  this  cause  came  I  unto 
this  hour.  Father,  glorify  Thy  Name.  Then  came 
there  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  I  have  both 
glorified  it,  and  will  glorify  it  again.  The  people 
therefore,  that  stood  b}^  and  heard  it,  said  that  it 
thundered:  otliers  said.  An  angel  spake  to  Him." 
That  is  to  say,  the  heavenly  voice  which  fell  in 
articulate  accents  on  the  sensitive  ears  of  our  Saviour 
sounded  like  the  rumbling  of  distant  thunder  on  the 
•duller  organs  of  those  who  were  about  Him. 

I  believe  that  some  of  the  discrepancies  in  the 
Gospel  record  of  our  Lord's  Resurrection  may  be 
■explained  in  that  way.  Woman's  greater  refinement 
and  delicacy  of  organization  makes  her  probably 
more  sensitive  than  man  to  spiritual  influences ;  and 
this  is  probably  the  reason  why  the  devout  women 

*  xii.  27-29. 


GOSPEL   DISCREPANCIES.  221 

who  visited  tin*  toiiil)  of  tln'  risen  Sa\  iom-  saw  fiirtlicr 
into  the  spiritual  world  tliaii  Pctci*  and  Joliii.  Mary 
Mai^dalcnc,  whose  absorbing  love  and  poignant  grief 
had  doubtless  quickened  her  spiritual  perceptions,  saw 
two  angels.  The  other  women  saw  <»nly  one.  Peter 
and  John  saw  none.  In  fact,  the}'  each  saw  more  ^>r 
less  in  the  degree  in  which  they  were  sensitive  to 
spiritual  influences. 

The  vision  of  St.  8teph<'n  just  )>efore  he  died'  is  in 
some  respects  a  still  more  striking  illustration  of  tlm 
contiguity  of  the  visil^le  world  and  the  world  unseen. 
"Being  full  of  the  H0I3'  (}host,"he  "looked  up  stod- 
fastly  into  heaven,  and  saw  the  glory  of  God,  and  Jesus, 
standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  said,  Behold 
I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  stand- 
ing on  the  I'ight  hand  of  CJod.' 

Where  were  the  heav(Mis  into  winch  the  dying 
martyr  gaze<l ':  Millions  of  miles  away  beyond  tlu^ 
starry  firmament  ?  Were  his  bodily  eyes  miraculously 
endowed  with  a  telescopic  power  of  traversing  in  a 
moment  tlu;  planetary  spaces  and  looking  into  a 
world  of  supersensuous  glories  behind  them  ?  Is  it 
not  plain,  on  the  contrary,  that  his  real  self,  his 
spiritual  nature,  with  faculties  intensified  by  the 
near   approach    of    dissolution,    was    enabled    to   see 

'  Acts  vii.  55-57 


222  THE   TWO    WORLDS  DIVIDED 

through  the  integuments  of  tlie  natural  life  into 
the  world  of  unseen  realities  ^Yhich  lie  above  it,  not 
in  space  but  in  altitude  of  being  ?  The  "  everlasting- 
doors  "  were  "  lifted  up/'  and  the  proto-martyr  was 
vouchsafed  a  glimpse  into  a  world  of  unearthly 
splendour  close  to  him,  and  saw  his  Divine  Master 
standing  to  receive  His  brave  and  loyal  servant. 
The  murderers  of  St.  Stephen,  on  the  other  hand, 
saw  nothing  but  the  rapt  gaze  of  their  victim ;  for 
the  world  which  was  disclosed  to  him,  though  equally 
close  to  them,  is  "  spiritually  discerned,"  and  they 
lacked  that  spiritual  insight. 

The  narrative  of  St.  Paul's  conversion  is  another 
instance  of  the  spiritual  world  being  revealed  in 
proportion  to  man's  receptivity.  According  to  the 
account  in  Acts  ix.,  "  the  men  which  journeyed  with 
him  stood  speechless,  hearing  a  voice,  but  seeing  no 
man."  The  Apostle  himself,  on  the  other  hand,  says : 
"  And  they  that  were  with  me  saw  indeed  the  light, 
and  were  afraid ;  l.iut  they  heard  not  the  voice  of 
Him  that  spake  to  me."^  This  superficial  dis- 
crepancy is  easily  explained.  St.  Paul's  companions 
heard  a  mere  sound ;  his  ear,  rendered  preternaturally 
sensitive  by  his  extreme  spiritual  tension,  caught  the 
articulate  words  in  the  sound.^ 

'  Acts  xxii.  9.  *  Ta  (pwvrjfVTa  cvviToiai. 


BY  DIFFEREXCE   OF  MODE,  823 

Tliesc  examples  sliow  very  plainly  wliat  tli<3  Jjil)lo 
would  have  us  believe  as  to  the  relation  between  the 
world  ol*  sense  and  the  world  of  spirit.  We  are  to 
understand  that  the  world  we  sec  is  phenomenal,  a 
world  of  transitory  appearances,  behind  and  through 
which  exists  a  spiritual  Avorld  into  wdiich  even  mortal 
man  may  obtain  glimpses  in  proportion  to  his  purity 
of  heart.  We  never  see  the  real  cause  of  anything 
— the  hidden  power  which  energizes  behind  the  veil 
of  gross  matter.  We  see  etiects  only,  not  the  source 
from  which  they  come.  Who  ever  saw  any  of  the 
])otent  forces  that  move  and  control  the  visible 
iniiverse  ?  Who  ever  saw  even  a  human  being  in  its 
very  self  ?  What  we  see  is  merely  the  exterior 
covering  of  the  man's  self.  He  remains  hidden,  and 
manifests  liis  presence  by  the  movements  of  the  body. 
And  when  the  spirit  leaves  the  body  the  latter 
1  locomes  dead  matter,  as  inert  and  lifeless  as  a  stone. 
All  tlie  forces  which  keep  natural  bodies  in  their 
form  are  in  their  last  analysis  spiritual.  The  planets 
<lo  not  move  in  their  orbits  by  the  law  of  gravitation, 
but  according  to  it.  Gravitation  is  the  method 
according  to  which  an  unseen  Power  acts  from 
and  through  the  spiritual  world  on  the  material. 
The  two  worlds  are  thus  not  divided  from  each  other 
by  distance  in  space,  but  by  difference  of  mode.     Tlie 


224  WHAT  PHYSICAL  SCIENCE  SAYS. 

material  world  rests  on  the  spiritual,  and  is  in  a  state 
of  ceaseless  development  out  of  it;  and  the  more 
spiritualized  the  human  faculties  become,  the  more 
they  see  of  the  spiritual  world. 

Such  is  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.     Let  us  see  what 
physical  science  has  to  say  upon  the  subject. 

We  speak  of  five  bodily  senses  :  but  in  strictness  of 
speech  we  have  only  one  sense — that  of  touch.  Our 
vision  of  external  objects  is  nothing  else  but  sensa- 
tions made  on  the  retina  of  the  cj^e  by  contact  with 
the  vibrations  of  an  external  substance.  To  produce 
the  sensation  of  scarlet  477  biUion  vibrations  of  the 
luminiferous  ether  touch  the  retina  every  second. 
As  the  vibrations  increase  in  rapidity — in  other  words, 
as  the  waves  of  light  diminish  in  size — other  shades 
of  colour  are  produced,  till  we  reach  the  sensation  of 
violet,  which  is  caused  by  upwards  of  700  billions  of 
vibrations.  Waves  of  lio^ht  above  or  below  these 
limits  arc  invisible  to  the  human  eye  ;  that  is,  they 
move  too  rapidly  or  too  slowly  to  make  any  impression 
on  the  optic  nerve.  This  is  but  another  way  of 
saying  that  objects  innumerable  may  exist  in  the 
midst  of  us,  spiritual  beings  and  unimaginable  forms 
and  colours,  of  whose  presence,  though  close  to  us, 
we  are  not  conscious,  because  our  visual  organs  are  not 
sufficiently  subtile  to  behold  them.     A  late  President 


THEORY  OF   VISION.  225 

of  the  Britisli  Association,  who  is  equally  distinguished 
jis  a  lawyer  and  a  man  of  science,  records  the  last 
word  of  physical  science  when  he  says  that  "  myriads 
of  organized  beings  may  exist  imperceptible  to  our 
vision  even  if  we  were  among  them."  ^  And  these  in- 
visible shapes  and  colours  are  seen  not  only  by  higher 
intelligences  than  ours,  but  by  creatures  infinitely 
lower  than  ourselves  in  the  scale  of  being.  Eagles, 
for  example,  can  see  objects  at  distances  which  the 
human  eye  cannot  approach.  Ants,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  able  to  discern  near  things  so  minute 
or  so  subtile  as  to  elude  the  eye  of  man.  I  do  not 
now  refer  to  what  is  called  "  second  sight "  on  the 
part  of  dogs  and  other  animals,^  but  to  proved 
cases  of  superhuman  vision.  Sir  John  Lubbock 
has  shown  by  experiments   that   ants  see  distinctly 

•  Grove's  Correlation  of  Physical  Forces,  4th  edit.,  p.  161. 

'  Some  cases  of  this  sort  are  so  well  authenticated  that  it  seoma 
to  me  difficult  to  discredit  them  without  undermining  the  foundations 
of  evidence  altogether.  A  very  distinguished  literary  friend  of 
mine  vouches  for  the  following : — A  young  lady,  who  possc8«;ed  a 
dog  of  which  she  was  very  fond  and  which  was  devoted  to  her,  left 
home  on  a  visit  to  friends  at  a  distance.  One  day,  during  her 
absence,  her  dog,  chancing  to  look  out  of  a  drawing-room  window, 
uttered  a  bark  of  joy  and  rushed  out  upon  the  lawn,  where  it  began 
leaping  and  barking  on  one  spot  as  if  in  recognition  of  an  absent 
friend  standing  there.  Then  suddenly  stopping,  it  looked  up,  uttered 
a  howl  of  terror,  and  rushed  back  trembling  into  the  house.  News 
arrived  soon  afterwards  that  at  that  very  time  the  absent  owner  of 
the  dog  had  died. 

Q 


226  PHENOMENA    OF  SOUND, 

the  ultra-violet  rays  of  the  spectrum,  which  make 
no  impression  whatever  on  the  human  eye.^  In 
other  words,  some  insects  behold  a  world  of  surpass- 
ing splendour  to  which,  though  close  to  us,  we  are 

blind. 

The  phenomena  of  sound  are  parallel  with  those  of 
sight.  Notes  above  or  below  a  certain  pitch,  though 
the  air  be  resonant  with  them,  are  inaudible  to  the 
human  ear.  Professor  Tyndall  explains  the  reason 
in  his  delightful  book  On  Sound}  Vibrations  of 
sound  fewer  than  16  in  a  second  give  us  the  sensation 
of  mere  inarticulate  noise.  Vibrations  that  exceed  16 
per  second  and  are  fewer  than  38,000  per  second  give 
us  the  sensation  of  musical  notes,  varying  in  pitch 
with  the  rate  of  the  vibrations.  Beyond  this  limit 
in  either  direction  the  human  ear  hears  nothins:, 
though  millions  of  sounds  are  sweeping  past  it  with- 
out intermission — sounds  that  are  not  only  audible 
but  loud  to  the  ears  of  more  sensitive  creatures 
Professor  Tyndall  gives  the  following  illustration  : — 

"  I  once  crossed  a  Swiss  mountain  in  company  with 
a  friend ;  a  donkey  was  in  advance  of  us,  and  the 
dull  tramp  of  the  animal  was  heard  by  my  com- 
panion ;  but  to  me  this  sound  was  almost  masked  by 

*  See  Report  of  Sir  John  Lubbock's  experiments  in  the  Standard 
of  June  3,  1881.  '  Pp.  72-75. 


TESTIMONY  OF  TV  NBA  LI..  227 

tlie  slirill  chirruping  of  innumerable  insects  uhich 
thronged  the  adjacent  grass.  My  friend  heard  no- 
thing of  this:  it  lay  quite  beyond  the  range  of  his 
hearing.    * 

Professor  Tyndall's  ear  was  sensitive  to  the  quick 
vibrations,  but  scarcely  heard  the  slow.  His  friend's 
ear  caught  the  impressions  of  the  slow  vibrations, 
but  heard  nothing  of  the  quick.  A  letter  in  the 
Times  of  November  13,  187  i,  throws  some  more  light 
on  this  interesting  subject.  The  writer,  who  signs 
himself   "  C.  J.  G.,"  says  :— 

**  Adapting  the  concluding  sentences  of  the  letter  of 
the  Rev.  F.  O.  Morris,  in  the  TivMS  of  Saturday,  it 
may  be  observed  that  there  are  doubtless  more 
sounds  uttered  on  the  earth  and  in  the  air  than  can 
reach  our  ears.  It  is  well  known  that  to  many 
persons  the  grasshopper  and  the  bat  are  dumb,  and  it 
is  probable  that  moths  and  other  insects  attract  each 

»  Another  illustration  of  this  fact  is  given  in  Mr.  Skertchly's 
Dahomey  As  It  la,  pp.  50-51.  Speaking  of  the  largo  bats  of  that 
region,  ho  says  :  "  They  utter  a  sharp  chirrup,  something  like  the 
squeak  of  a  rat,  but  very  much  higher  in  pitch,  so  high  indeed  that 
I  have  frequently  come  across  individuals  whoso  acoustic  powers  had 
not  sufficient  range  to  permit  of  their  hearing  the  note;  and  on  more 
than  one  occasion  I  have  said  to  Buchan"  (his  half-caste  servant). 
"  'What  a  noise  these  bats  are  making!'  Upon  which  he  has  ob- 
served to  me,  '  Bats  have  no  months  for  talking,'  be  being  perfectly 
unconscious  of  their  vocal  powera." 


228  ABNORMAL  PERCEPTIVITY 

other  by  calls  inaudible  to  us  rather  than  by  scent. 
One  night,  a  few  years  ago,  I  had  a  female  tiger- 
moth  in  a  gauze  cage,  in  a  room  opening  into  a  garden. 
I  had  reared  the  moth  from  a  caterpillar  myself.  The 
room  was  full  of  tobacco  smoke,  and  the  garden  was 
in  the  middle  of  a  town ;  yet  in  less  than  two  hours 
no  less  than  five  male  ti^^er-moths  flew  to  the  cao^e. 
Though  I  have  sat  in  the  same  room  hundreds  of 
nights  with  the  window  open  and  a  light  burning,  I 
never,  before  or  since,  knew  a  tiger-moth  to  be 
attracted  thither.  It  seems  almost  impossible  that 
these  moths  could  have  been  led  to  the  spot  from 
other  walled-in,  and  in  some  cases  distant,  gardens 
in  any  other  way  but  by  a  call  in  the  stillness  of  the 
night.  But  the  captive  moth  made  no  perceptible 
noise  even  with  its  wings." 

In  view  of  these  facts  there  is  nothing  unreasonable 
in  believing  that  persons  in  a  state  of  high  spiritual 
tension  may  be  cognizant  of  sights  and  sounds  which 
make  no  impression,  or  only  a  vague  and  meaningless 
impression,  on  the  multitude.  The  story  of  Jessie 
Cameron  is  well  known  and  well  authenticated.  She 
heard  in  Lucknow  the  bagpipes  of  the  relieving  army 
many  hours  before  the  sound  could  reach  ordinary 
human  ears.  Indeed,  when  we  think  of  the  wonders 
of  the  telephone  and  microphone,  in  combination  with 


JX  CERTAIN  MENTAL  STATES.  229 

tlie  scientific  fact  tliat  vibrations  of  the  atmosphere 
started  by  the  liuman  voice  or  otherwise  never  cease, 
eacli  wave  keeping  its  individual  identity  though 
crossed  by  myriads  of  others,  like  the  concentric 
circlets  formed  in  a  pool  of  water  by  the  fall  of  a 
pebble,  it  would  be  rash  to  reject  almost  any  wonder 
merely  on  the  ground  of  its  being  opposed  to  the 
experience  of  mankind  hitherto.  When  travellers 
tell  us  that  they  sometimes  hear,  in  the  solitude  of  a 
distant  desert,  the  sound  of  their  villaoje  bells  at  home,^ 
it  is  probably  nothing  but  an  illusion  of  the  imagina- 
tion. And  yet  have  we  a  right  to  say  that  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  ?  The  vibrations  caused  by  the 
volcanic  explosion  of  Krakatoa  in  1883  reached 
Greenwich  in  a  few  hours.  In  his  eloquent  fragment 
in  the  series  of  Bridge  water  Treatises  the  late  Pro- 
fessor Babbage  compares  the  atmosphere  to  a  vast 
library,  on  whose  pages  is  registered  unceasingly  all 
that  man  has  ever  said  or  woman  whispered.  And 
when  we  reflect,  to  quote  the  words  of  an  eloquent 
writer,  "  that  tliere  are  waves  of  light  and  sound  of 
which  our  dull  senses  take  no  cognizance,  that  there 
is  a  great  difference  even  in  human  perceptivity,  and 
that  some  men,  more  gifted  than  others,  can  see 
colours  or  hear  sounds  which  are  invisible  or  inaudible 

'  Kinglake,  in  hie  EuOien,  relates  one  of  these  experiences. 


230  THE   TEACHING  OF  SCRIPTURE 

to  the  great  bulk  of  mankind,  you  will  appreciate  how 
possible  it  is  that  there  may  be  a  world  of  spiritual 
existences  around  us — inhabiting  this  same  globe, 
enjoying  the  same  nature — of  which  we  have  no  per- 
ception ;  that,  in  fact,  the  wonders  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem may  be  in  our  midst,  and  the  songs  of  the 
an^relic  hosts  fillinof  the  air  with  their  celestial  har- 
mony,  although  unheard  and  unseen  by  us."  ^  Truly 
"  there  are  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth  than  are 
dreamt  of  in  our  philosophy." 

We  read  in  the  Apocalypse  :  ^  "  And  every  created 
thing  which  is  in  the  heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and 
under  the  earth,  and  on  the  sea,  and  all  things  that 
are  in  them,  heard  I  saying.  Unto  Him  that  sitteth  on 
the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  be  the  blessing,  and 
the  honour,  and  the  glory,  and  the  dominion,  for  ever 
and  ever."  This,  of  course,  is  poetry ;  but,  like  all 
real  poetry,  it  rests  on  a  basis  of  truth.  I  have  on  a 
former  occasion  referred  to  the  ceaseless  movements 
and  voices  of  Nature  even  in  substances  which  appear 
to  be  solid  and  inert.  Every  particle  of  matter,  every 
molecule  in  space,  has  its  own  rhythmical  movement 
and  ceaseless  melody  unconsciously  hymning  the 
praises  of  its  Maker.     "  They  rest  not  day  and  night," 

*  Religion  and  Chemistry,  by  Professor  J.  P.  Cooke,  p.  107. 
«  V.  13. 


AND  SCIENCE    CONVERGE.  231 

proclaiming  the  glory  of  the  Creator^  is  as  true  of  tlio 
atoms  which  compose  the  material  iiiiiverse  as  of 
the  intelligent  beings  who  sing  their  hallelujahs  in 
the  courts  of  heaven.  The  Hebrew  Psalmist  antici- 
pated the  conclusions  of  modern  science  when  lie 
represents  the  heavens  as  thus  "  declaring  the  glory 
of  God  ; "  Job  also,  when  he  describes  "  the  morning 
stars  "  and  "  the  sons  of  God  "  as  "  singing  together  " 
in  a  choir  of  eucharistic  adoration. 

"  Look  how  the  floor  of  heaven 
Is  thick  inlaid  with  patincs  of  brif^ht  gold. 
There's  not  the  sniallost  orb  which  thou  behold'st 
Bat  in  his  motion  like  an  angel  sings, 
Still  choiring  to  the  young-eyed  cherubims. 
Such  harmony  is  in  immortal  souls  ; 
But  whilst  this  muddy  vesture  of  decay 
Doth  grossly  close  it  in  we  cannot  hear  it."  * 

Let  US  pursue  the  subject  a  little  further  in  the 
light  cast  upon  it  by  the  discoveries  of  modem 
science.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  atmosphere 
wliich  surrounds  tliis  earth,  and  which  is  essential  to 
every  form  of  terrestrial  life,  is  a  real  substance, 
invisil)le,  subtile,  elastic,  and  irresistibly  powerful.  In 
this  diffused  medium  all  forms  of  existences  reerister 
themselves,  print  their  biogi'aphies  in  vibrations  of 
imperishable  sounds,  only  a  small  fraction  of  which 

•  Merchant  of  Venice,  Act  v.  sc.  1. 


232  MYSTERIES  OF  SCIENCE 

are  audible  to  human  ears.  But  far  more  wonderful 
than  the  atmosphere  is  the  luminiferous  ether  which 
is  the  medium  of  light.  It  penetrates  not  only  the 
atmosphere,  but  all  substances,  however  dense  and 
solid ;  and  it  is  believed,  on  scientific  grounds,  to 
pervade  the  universe,  and  to  register  all  existences 
and  phenomena  by  its  vibrations. 

"  We  are  asked  by  physical  philosophers  to  give  up 
all  our  ordinary  prepossessions,  and  believe  that  the 
interstellar  space  which  seemed  so  empty  is  not 
empty  at  all,  but  filled  with  something  immensely 
more  solid  and  elastic  than  steel.  As  Dr.  Young 
himself  remarked,  '  the  luminiferous  ether,  pervading 
all  space  and  penetrating  all  substances,  is  not  only 
highly  elastic,  but  absolutely  solid ! ! ! '  Sir  John 
Herschel  has  calculated  the  amount  of  force  which 
may  be  supposed,  according  to  the  undulatory  theory 
of  light,  to  be  exerted  at  each  point  in  space,  and 
finds  it  to  be  1,148,000,000,000  times  the  elastic  force 
of  ordinary  air  at  the  earth's  surface ;  so  that  the 
pressure  of  the  ether  upon  a  square  inch  of  surface 
must  be  about  17,000,000,000,000,  or  seventeen  billions 
of  pounds.  Yet  we  live  and  move  without  appreciable 
resistance  in  this  medium,  indefinitely  harder  and 
more  elastic  than  adamant.  All  our  ordinary  notions 
must  be  laid  aside  in  contemplating  such  an  hypothesis, 


AXD  AfYSTERIES  OF  FAITH.  233 

yet  it  is  no  more  tlian  the  observed  phenomena  of 
light  and  heat  force  us  to  accept.  We  cannot  deny- 
even  the  strange  suggestion  of  Dr.  Young,  that  there 
may  be  independent  worlds,  some  possibly  existing  in 
ditlerent  parts  of  space,  hut  others  perhaps  pervading 
each  other,  unseen  and  unknown,  in  the  same  space. 
For  if  we  are  bound  to  admit  the  conception  of  this 
adamantine  firmament,  it  is  equally  easy  to  admit  a 
plurality  of  such.  We  see  then  that  mere  difficulties 
of  conception  must  not  in  the  least  discredit  a  theory 
which  otherwise  agrees  with  facts,  and  we  must  only 
reject  hypotheses  which  are  inconceivable  in  the  sense 
of  breaking  distinctly  the  primary  laws  of  thought 
and  Nature.''^ 

In  face  of  these  mysteries  of  physical  science,  how 
rash  are  the  cavils  against  our  Lord's  Resurrection 
and  Ascension,  and  His  passing  through  solid  sub- 
stances without  impediment.  If  "  something  im- 
mensely more  solid  and  elastic  than  steel "  and  "  in- 
definitely harder  and  more  elastic  than  adamant "  can 
pass  through  solid  substance,  what  is  there  incredible 
in  a  still  more  subtile  substance,  like  our  Lord's 
spiritual  Body,  moving  unimpeded  by  any  of  the 
barriers  which  arrest  our  motion  ?  And  do  not  these 
wonderful  disclosures  of   the  secrets  of  Nature  help 

'   The  Principles  of  Science,  by  W.  S.  Jevons,  vol.  ii.  pp.  144,  145. 


234  SCIENTIFIC  DISCOVERIES 

US  to  get  some  idea  of  the  Divine  Omnipresence  ?  A 
man  is  present  not  simply  on  the  few  inches  of  ground 
on  which  he  stands,  but  as  far  as  his  eyes  and  ears 
can  reach.  If  he  had  organs  that  would  put  him,  as 
regards  sight  and  hearing,  in  communication  with 
beings  a  million  of  miles  away,  he  would  be  really 
present  with  them.  Now,  if  infinite  space  is  pervaded 
by  a  subtile  medium  which  penetrates  all  known  sub- 
stances and  registers  every  movement,  is  it  incompre- 
hensible that  a  Being  such  as  we  conceive  God  to  be, 
occupying  the  centre  of  the  universe,  should  have 
continuous  cognizance  of  every  part  of  it,  either 
directly  or  through  the  recording  vibration  of  the 
omnipresent  ether  ?  May  there  not  be  an  even  sub- 
tiler  medium  than  this  luminiferous  ether  which 
registers  every  sight  and  sound  in  the  universe  from 
moment  to  moment  ?  Let  us  remember  that  to  pure 
spirits  all  material  substances  known  to  us  are 
practically  non-existent.  The  visible  world  and  the 
unseen  are  simply  incommensurable :  we  cannot 
argue  from  the  impossibilities  of  the  one  to  those 
of  the  other.  The  Schoolmen  probably  meant  no 
more  than  this  when  they  debated  how  many  angels 
could  stand  on  the  point  of  a  needle — a  question 
which  has  furnished  an  abundance  of  cheap  ridicule 
against  them.  Yet  let  us  see  what  physical  science 
has  to  say  on  that  subject : 


CORROBORATE    THE  SCRIPTURES.  235 

"  Scientific  method  leads  us  to  tlie  inevitable  con- 
ception of  an  infinite  series  of  successive  orders  of 
infinitely  small  quantities.  If  so,  there  is  nothini; 
improbable  in  the  existence  of  a  myriad  universes 
within  the  compass  of  a  needle's  point,  each  with  its 
stellar  systems  and  its  suns  and  planets  in  number 
and  variety  unlimited.  Science  does  nothing  to 
reduce  the  number  of  strange  things  that  we  may 
believe.  When  fairly  pursued  it  makes  large  drafts 
upon  our  powers  of  comprehension  and  belief."  ^ 

It  does  indeed.  There  is  not  a  mystery  of  the 
Christian  Faith  which  may  not  be  paralleled  by 
a  mystery  of  science  quite  as  staggering  to  the 
human  understanding.  Our  Lord  and  three  of  His 
Apostles  tell  us  that  the  visible  universe  is  tending 
towards  a  catastrophe  in  which  "  the  stars  shall  fall 
from  heaven,  and  the  powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be 
shaken ; "  when  "  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with 
a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent 
heat ; "  to  be  succeeded, "  according  to  His  promise,"  by 
"  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth 
righteousness."  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel — 
that "  the  things  which  are  seen  are  temporal,"  moving 
on  to  a  cataclysm  out  of  w^hich  a  new  order  of  things 
shall  emerge.     And  it  has  often  been  the  butt  of  the 

*  2'Ae  rrinciples  0/  Science,  p.  14'3. 


236  ERRONEOUS  IDEAS  OF  HEAVEN 

scorner,  who  imagined  that  it  was  refuted  by  the 
testimony  of  physical  science.  But  physical  science 
has  come  round  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel. 
Scientific  men  are  now,  I  believe,  agreed  that,  owing 
to  ethereal  friction  and  the  constant  dissipation  of 
energy  throughout  the  visible  universe,  the  smaller 
bodies  will  eventually  fall  into  the  larger,  and  these 
larger  into  still  larger,  till  at  last  "  the  things  which 
are  seen "  "  shall  melt  with  the  fervent  heat "  of  a 
tremendous  collision  and  disappear,  being,  as  the 
authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe  argue,  absorbed  into 
the  Spiritual  Universe.^ 

By  our  Lord's  Ascension  into  Heaven,  then,  we 
mean  His  disappearance  into  the  spiritual  realm 
which  pervades  the  material.  And  that  realm,  as  He 
has  Himself  assured  us,  consists  of  various  spheres  of 
being.  The  common  notion  about  heaven,  I  suppose, 
is  that  it  is  one  vast  place  in  which  the  whole  human 
race,  together  with  the  angels,  shall  be  assembled  after 
the  general  Judgment,  and  there  live  for  ever  in 
ceaseless  adoration.  Very  difierent  is  the  view  which 
our  Lord  gives  us  of  heaven.  He  describes  it  as  a 
world  of  many  abodes.  "  In  My  Father's  house  are 
many  dwelling-places  ;  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have 

»  The  Unseen  Universe,  pp.  165,  166,  197 ;  Prof.  Clifford  in  Fort- 
nightly Review,  June,  1875. 


CONTRASTED    WITH  SCRIPTURAL.  237 

told  you :  I  go  to  preparo  a  place  for  you."  ^  "  If  it 
were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you."  In  other  words, 
it  is  natural  to  expect  that  there  should  be  different 
dwelling-places,  different  spheres  of  being,  different 
planes  of  existences  in  the  spiritual  world;  so  natural 
indeed  is  it  that,  were  it  otherwise,  our  Lord  would 
have  made  a  special  revelation  on  the  subject.  I  may 
observe  in  passing  that  we  may  take  this  gracious 
saying  as  an  axiom  in  the  spiritual  life.  Our  instincts, 
the  instincts  of  universal  humanity — belief  in  the 
efficacy  of  prayer,  for  example,  and  in  immortality — 
must  have  their  appropriate  satisfaction,  or  the  God 
of  Nature  would  have  warned  us  :  "  If  it  were  not  so 
I  would  have  told  you."  Certainly  our  own  instincts 
confirm  our  Lord's  declaration  that  there  are  many 
modes  and  spheres  of  life  in  the  world  unseen.  Human 
beings  are  pouring  daily  into  the  spiritual  world  at 
the  rate  of  sixty  a  minute.  This  vast  multitude  pass 
out  of  this  life  in  every  stage  of  moral  development 
or  degeneration,  and  it  stands  to  reason  that  they  are 
not  all  equally  fitted  for  the  same  abode  in  the  world 
of  spirits.  Even  those  who  make  the  best  of  tluir 
opportunities  here  do  not  necessarily  inhabit  the 
same  abode  in  the  next  world.  The  faithful  servant, 
who  increased  his  lord's  money  tenfold,  received 
'  St.  John  xiv.  2. 


238  VARIOUS  SPHERES  OF  BEING 

"  authority  over  ten  cities ; "  while  he  whose  pound 
gained  five  more  was  made  ruler  "over  five  cities." 
Both  were  found  to  be  equally  "  good  and  faithful ;  " 
but  they  differed  in  original  capacity,  and  were  treated 
accordingly.  Each  received  the  full  measure  of  his 
ability  to  enjoy.  Ten  cities  would  have  been  too 
many  for  the  one ;  five  would  have  been  too  few  for 
the  other.  But  the  capacity  for  present  enjoyment  is 
no  measure  of  the  capacity  for  future  enjoyment. 
Progress  is  the  law  of  moral  and  intellectual  life,  and 
in  heaven  the  progress  will  be  unceasing,  there  being 
nothing  to  stop  or  impede  it.  "  They  will  go  from 
strength  to  strength."  ^  The  faculties  will  expand  by 
unwearied  exercise,  and  will  receive  fresh  accessions 
of  enjoyment  as  they  are  able  to  bear  it.  There  will 
thus  be  an  endless  ascent  from  sphere  to  sphere  in  the 
lives  of  heaven,  a  constant  progression  through  the 
"many  dwelling-places"  of  which  our  Lord  speaks. 
Each  acquisition  of  knowledge  will  be  a  stepping-stone 
to  further  discoveries.  Insatiable  curiosity,  ever 
gratified  but  never  quenched,  is  the  law  of  the 
heavenly  life,  as  "alps  on  alps  arise"  on  its  ever- 
widening  horizon.  The  common  notion  that  heaven 
is  one  sphere  of  being  equally  adapted  to  all  its  inha- 
bitants, angelic  and  human,  is  thoroughly  unscriptural. 
^  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  7. 


IN  HEAVEN.  239 

The  plurality  of  the  heavens  is  not  only  taught  in 
numberless  passages  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, but  also  in  the  Prayer  which  our  Lord  Him- 
self has  taught  us,  where  He  bids  us  to  say,  "  Our 
Father  which  art  in  the  heavens ; "  which  is  the 
correct  translation. 

Our  Lord,  then,  "  ascended  into  heaven,"  "  to  pre- 
pare a  place  "  for  His  people ;  to  **  open  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  to  all  believers :  "  to  all  believers,  because 
faith  is  the  eye  which  enables  the  soul  to  see  heaven. 
But  how  does  He  open  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  "  By 
a  new  and  living  way  which  He  hath  consecrated  for 
us,  through  the  veil,  that  is  to  say.  His  flesh."  ^  What 
are  we  to  understand  by  this  pregnant  expression  ? 
Surely  that  our  Lord's  Incarnation  is  the  medium  of 
communication  between  the  natural  life  and  the 
spiritual.  It  is,  in  the  first  place,  as  I  have  already 
explained,  the  copula  that  unites  the  creation  witli 
the  Creator.  It  is,  in  a  more  restricted  sense,  a  fresh 
source  of  purified  life  to  the  sinful  children  of  Adam. 
"  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all 
be  made  alive."  ^  How  do  all  men  die  in  Adam  ?  By 
deriving  from  him  the  gorm  of  a  perverted  life,  a 
nature  biased  towards  evil  by  the  now  recognized 
law  of  heredity.  How  are  all  to  be  made  alive  in 
»  Heb.  X.  ZO.  »  1  Cor.  xv.  22. 


240  MAN'S  CONNECTION  WITH 

Christ  ?  By  receiving  from  Him  the  germ  of  a  new 
life,  which,  if  they  do  not  stifle  it,  will  gradually 
leaven  the  old  nature  and  take  its  place.  Our  con- 
nection with  fallen  humanity  is  an  organic  connec- 
tion :  the  first  Adam  has  passed  on  his  injured  nature 
to  his  descendants.  If  then,  as  St.  Paul  assures  us, 
the  Son  of  God  became  incarnate  that  He  might  be 
"  the  New  Man,"  the  "  Second  Adam,"  from  whom  a 
fresh  supply  of  life  might  circulate  through  our  im- 
poverished nature,  does  it  not  follow  that  our  con- 
nection with  Him  must  also  be  organic  ?  How  e]s3 
can  we  be  "  members  of  Christ,"  as  our  Catechism  has 
it  ?  And  the  Catechism  does  but  follow  the  stronger 
language  of  St.  Paul,  who  compares  the  connection 
between  Christ  and  us  with  that  between  Adam  and 
his  wife,  who  was  made  "  bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh 
of  his  flesh."  Christians,  he  says,  "  are  limbs  of  His 
body,  out  of  His  flesh  and  His  bones."  ^  And  else- 
where :  "  The  first  man  Adam  was  made  a  living  soul, 
the  Last  Adam  was  made  a  life-giving  (^woTrotouv) 
spirit.  Howbeit  that  was  not  first  which  is  spiritual, 
but  that  which  is  natural ;  and  afterward  that 
which  is  spiritual.  The  first  man  is  of  the  earth, 
earthy :  the  Second  Man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven. 
As  is  the  earthy,  such  are  they  also  that  are  earthy ; 

*  Eph.  V.  30. 


THE  FIRST  AXD  SECOND   ADAM.  241 

and  as  is  the  heavenly,  such  arc  they  also  that  are 
heavenl}^  And  as  we  have  borne  the  image  of 
the  earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the 
heavenly."  ^  These  words  can  bear  but  one  meaning, 
namely,  that  the  connection  with  "  the  Last  Adam  " 
is  just  as  real  as  the  connection  with  the  first.  Our 
Lord  Himself  conveys  the  same  idea  under  the  image 
of  the  life-giving  Vine  and  its  branches ;  and  still 
more  emphatically  in  the  sacramental  discourse  re- 
corded in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel. 
There  He  calls  Himself  "the  Bread  of  life,"  "the 
living  Bread  which  came  down  from  heaven."  And 
then  more  plainly :  "  The  Bread  that  I  will  give  is 
My  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 
And  when  His  hearers  questioned  the  possibility  of 
such  a  gift,  He  repeated  His  startling  assertion  with 
a  solemn  asseveration:  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso 
eateth  My  flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood,  hath  eternal 
life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  For 
^ly  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  blood  is  drink 
indeed.  .  .  .  Many  therefore  of  His  disciples,  when 
they  had  heard  his,  said,  This  is  an  hard  saying ;  who 
can  hear  it  ?  .  .  .     From  that  time  many  of  His  dis- 

'  1  Cor.  XV.  45-49. 

R 


242  "  THE  SPIRIT  QUICKENETH  " 

ciples  went  back,  and  walked  no  more  with  Him." 
And  He  would  not  call  them  back  by  watering  down 
His  "  hard  saying ; "  on  the  contrary,  He  asked  the 
Twelve,  "  Will  ye  also  go  away  ? " 

How  shall  we  understand  His  words  ?  They  are 
"  an  hard  saying  "  still.  Shall  we  call  them  figurative  ?  ■ 
In  one  sense  all  language  is  figurative.  It  is  the 
clothing,  not  the  skin,  of  thought,  and  never  adequately 
expresses  the  truth.  Our  Lord's  language  here  is 
fio-urative  in  the  sense  that  it  conveys  less,  not  more, 
than  the  words  imply.  "It  is  the  spirit,"  He  ex- 
plained, "  that  quickeneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing : 
the  words  that  I  speak  to  you  are  spirit  and  are 
life."  That  is  to  say,  when  He  spoke  of  giving  His 
flesh  and  blood  as  the  food  of  His  people.  He  did  not 
mean  by  flesh  and  blood  anything  that  the  bodily 
senses  could  apprehend  or  a  chemist  could  analyze 
into  its  elements.  In  that  sense  our  Lord's  flesh  and 
blood  are  certainly  not  present  in  the  Eucharist,  or 
indeed  anywhere.  It  is  true  that  He  called  on  His 
disciples  to  testify  to  His  "flesh  and  bones"  after 
His  Resurrection;  but  His  body  was  certainly  not 
such  flesh  and  bones  as  we  have  experience  of.  What 
we  call  flesh  and  bones  is  a  consolidation  of  gases  which 
may  be  resolved  into  their  elements ;  and  then  they 
cease  to  be  flesh  and  bones.     But  while  they  remain 


IN  ALL   FORMS  OF  LIFE,  243 

llesh  and  bones  they  are  subjeet  to  decay,  and  the 
ceaseless  waste  of  tissue  requires  to  be  repaired  by 
tlie  assimilation  of  congenial  nutriment.  Our  Lord's 
Resurrection  Body,  on  the  other  hand,  subsists  without 
food,  and  is  independent  of  the  laws  of  physics. 
"  Flesh  and  blood,"  as  we  know  them,  "cannot  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God;  neither  doth  corruption  inherit 
incorruption."  ^ 

"  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth 
nothing."  In  these  words  our  Lord  lays  down  a 
general  truth  applicable  to  all  life.  Even  in  material 
things  it  is  not  the  gross  mass  of  palpable  particles 
that  "  profiteth,"  but  "  the  spirit,"  the  inner  essence, 
which  is  too  subtile  for  the  apprehension  of  the 
senses,  too  ethereal  for  the  skill  of  science.  "  It  is 
the  spirit  that  quickeneth  "  throughout  the  realm  of 
Nature.  Matter  in  all  its  forms  is  an  evolution  from 
a  spiritual  cause  which  has  its  source  in  the  Divine 
Will.  "In  Him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our 
being,"  and  apart  from  Him  there  can  be  no  life.  In 
this  sense  the  whole  universe  of  created  being  may 
be  said  with  exact  truth  to  feed  upon  its  God.  All 
Nature  is  thus  in  a  manner  a  sacramental  system 
"an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and 
spiritual  grace  "  energizing  within  it.  By  the  "  hard 
>  1  Cur.  XV.  GO. 


244  THE  REAL  PRESENCE 

saying  "  which  shocked  the  people  of  Capernaum,  and 
many  others  since  their  day,  we  are  to  understand 
Christ's  essential  humanity.  He  would  have  us 
believe  that  this  is  the  source  and  sustaining  nutri- 
ment of  our  spiritual  life. 

But  how  can  our  Lord's  humanity  be  thus  dis- 
seminated germinally  among  the  millions  of  His 
members  ?  To  which  I  answer :  How  can  the  flesh 
and  blood — that  is,  the  essential  humanity — of  Adam 
be  germinally  disseminated  among  the  millions  of 
his  descendants  ?  We  know  that  it  is  so,  and  shall 
we  declare  that  to  be  impossible  to  God  Incarnate 
which  is  an  admitted  fact  in  the  case  of  fallen 
Adam  ?  Shall  the  first  Adam  be  capable  of  propa- 
gating his  perverted  nature  among  all  the  human 
beings  who  have  come  out  of  his  loins  ?  And  shall 
the  Second  Adam  be  incapable  of  imparting  His  life- 
giving  humanity  through  channels  of  His  own 
appointment  ?  There  is  a  real  presence,  in  no  figure 
of  speech  but  in  stern  truth,  of  Adam  in  all  his 
children.  But  there  is  a  fundamental  diflference 
between  Adam's  presence  through  the  long  line  of 
his  ofispring  and  Christ's  Sacramental  Presence. 
Adam  is  present  in  his  nature,  but  not  personally ; 
Christ  is  present  in  His  human  nature,  and  also 
Personally,  for  His  Person,  being  Divine,  is   insep- 


A   REASONABLE  DOCTRINE.  245 

arable  from  His  humanity,  and  is,  in  fact,  onnii- 
present.  Tliere  is  scarcely  a  greater  name  in  the 
history  of  philosophy  than  Leibnitz,  a  man  of  uni- 
versal i^cnius,  sound  judgment,  and  master  of  all  the 
learning  of  his  time.  A  sincere  Protestant  himself, 
lie  had  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the  doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence  in  the  Sacrament,  on  which  he  ex- 
presses himself  as  follows  in  one  of  his  letters  to  the 
Port-Royalist  Arnauld :  "  As  I  have  been  the  lirst  to 
discover  that  the  essence  of  a  body  does  not  consist  in 
extension,  but  in  motion,  and  hence  that  the  substance 
or  natui'e  of  a  body,  even  according  to  Aristotle's 
definition,  is  the  principle  of  motion  (tvrcXfxctG),  and 
that  this  principle  or  substance  of  the  body  has  no 
extension,  I  have  made  it  plain  how  God  can  be 
clearly  and  distinctly  understood  to  cause  the  sub- 
stance of  the  same  body  to  exist  in  many  difierent 
places."  ^ 

The  fact  is,  the  impugners  of  the  sacramental 
system  of  the  Church  take  too  contracted  a  view  of 
God's  relation  to  the  material  universe.  They  find  it 
hard  to  believe  that  spiritual  energy  can  be  imparted 
tlirough  material  channels — water,  or  bread  and  wine. 
I  hit  surely  the   wonder  would  be  if  it  were  not  so. 

'  Cf.  his  Syxtem  of  Theology  (translated  by  Dr.  Russell),  pp.  99, 
lOJ ;  also  Sir  W.  Hamiltou's  Diacussions  in  Philoaopliy,  pp.  004-607. 


246  HOW  CHRIST  BECOMES 

Does  any  of  His  gifts  reach  us  except  through  some 
material  agency?  What  were  the  prophets  of  old, 
what  is  the  Bible,  what  is  prayer,  but  material  organs 
of  communication  between  man  and  God  ?  Let  us 
purge  our  minds  of  carnal  notions  and  rise  above  the 
grovelling  literalism  of  the  people  of  Capernaum,  who 
imaoined  that  the  flesh  and  blood  with  which  Jesus 
offered  to  feed  them  meant  portions  of  ponderable 
matter.  "  They  are  spirit  and  they  are  life,"  and  all 
the  more  real  on  that  account. 

There  is  also  another  and  most  true  sense  in  which 
Christ  has  become  the  food  of  mankind.  His  character 
has  been  absorbed  into  the  constitution  of  the  govern- 
ing races  of  mankind,  and  has  effected  a  moral  trans- 
formation unique  in  the  history  of  our  race.  The  nations 
of  Christendom  are  still,  alas!  in  practice  far  behind  the 
standard  of  their  Christian  profession  and  recognized 
ideal.  Yet,  in  spite  of  all  drawbacks,  Christendom 
is  divided  by  an  immeasurable  chasm  of  moral 
superiority  from  the  whole  Pagan  world  in  ancient  or 
modern  times.  Vices  as  vile  as  any  recorded  in  the 
annals  of  heathendom  may  prevail  among  Christian 
nations,  for  the  corruption  of  the  best  is  proverbially 
the  worst  kind  of  corruption ;  but  at  least  these  vices 
do  not  hold  open  revel,  and  still  less  do  they  receive 
the  consecration  of  religion!      They  court  the  shade 


THE   FOOD   OF  HIS  PEOPLE.  247 

and  lurk  in  secret  places,  thereby  acknowled^nn^^  that 
they  are  under  the  bau  of  Christianity.  No  other 
teacher  has  ever  dared  to  ofi'cr  himself  as  th(3  food 
of  mankind,  that  he  might  thereby  transform  the  race 
into  his  own  likeness.  This  is  what  Jesus  did,  and 
He  has  made  good  His  promise.  His  spirit  and 
moral  (jualities  are  passing  daily  into  the  lives  of 
millions  of  human  beings,  purifying  and  ennobling 
them.  It  is  in  this  way  that  He  fulfils  His 
promise  of  not  leaving  His  followers  " orphans : "  "I 
will  not  leave  you  orphans :  I  will  come  to  you."  ^ 
It  is  thus  that  He  "  prepares  a  place  "  for  each  of  lis 
in  one  of  the  "  many  abodes  "  of  His  Father's  realm. 

'  St.  Juliu  xiv.  18. 


XI. 

"i  believe  one  catholic  and  apostolic 
Church." 

notes  of  the  church. 

The  Nicene  Creed  gives  us  three  notes  of  the  Church, 
namely, "  One,"  "  Catholic,"  "  Apostolic ;  "  to  which  the 
Apostles'  Creed  adds  "  Holy."  These  are  the  external 
marks  of  the  Church.  But  what  is  it  in  its  essence  ? 
What  are  its  ends,  its  functions,  its  constitution  ?  In 
the  New  Testament  it  is  called  by  various  names,  the 
most  common  being  a  "  Kingdom,"  of  which  Christ  is 
the  King,  and  a  "  Body,"  of  which  He  is  the  Head. 
Both  expressions  imply  an  organism,  that  is,  a  living 
structure  whose  various  parts  are  bound  together  by 
a  principle  of  unity  which  makes  them  work  harmo- 
niously towards  one  common  end  A  tree  is  an  organism. 
Trunk,  roots,  branches,  bark,  leaves,  sap  perform 
their  separate  functions,  not  independently  of  each 
other,  but  in  subordination  to  the  law  of  unity  which 
binds  them  all  into  one  individual  entity  animated 
by  a  common  life.     The  human  body  is  an  organism 


THE   CHURCH  IS  A   POLITY.  2 19 

of  a  similar  kind,  and  St.  Paul  compares,  in  an 
elaborate  passage,  its  organic  unity  and  <liversified 
parts  and  operations  with  the  unity  in  plurality  of 
the  Church  of  Christ.  "  There  are  diversities  of  gifts, 
but  the  same  Spirit.  And  there  are  differences  of 
administrations,  but  the  same  Lord.  And  there  are 
diversities  of  operations,  but  it  is  the  same  God  Which 
worketh  all  in  all.  .  .  .  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and 
hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one 
body,  being  many,  are  one  body :  so  also  is  Christ. 
For  by  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  unto  one 
body.  .  .  .  For  the  body  is  not  one  member,  but 
many.  ...  If  the  whole  body  were  an  eye,  where 
were  the  hearing  ?  if  the  whole  were  hearing,  where 
were  the  smelling  ?  But  now  hath  God  set  the 
members  every  one  of  them  in  the  body  as  it  hath 
pleased  Him.  And  if  they  were  all  one  member, 
where  were  the  body  ?  But  now  arc  they  many 
members,  but  one  body.  And  the  eye  cannot  say 
unto  the  hand,  I  have  no  need  of  thee :  nor  again 
the  head  to  the  feet,  I  have  no  need  of  you.  .  .  . 
Anfl  whether  one  member  sutler,  all  the  members 
suffer  with  it;  or  one  member  be  honoured,  all  the 
members  rejoice  with  it.  Now  ye  are  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  members  of  it  severally."  A  kingdom  also 
is  an  organism,  a  body  politic,  with  one  national  spirit 


250  A   DIVINE  INSTITUTION. 

diffused  and  energizing  through  its  component  parts 
and  cementing  them  into  one  organic  whole.  In 
defining  the  Church,  then,  as  a  "  Kingdom/'  or  "  Body," 
it  is  plain  that  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  meant  us  to 
understand  that  it  was  not  to  be  a  mere  fortuitous 
aggregation  of  individuals,  like  a  school  of  thought  or 
of  philosophy,  or  like  some  voluntary  association  of 
human  beings  formed  for  the  promotion  of  some  indus- 
trial or  benevolent  end,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  it 
was  to  be  a  Divine  Institution,  subject  to  the  laws  of 
organic  growth  and  development.  Hence  our  Lord 
compares  it  to  "  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which  a  man 
took,  and  sowed  in  his  field  :  which  indeed  is  the  least 
of  all  seeds :  but  when  it  is  grown,  it  is  the  greatest 
among  herbs,  and  becometh  a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of 
the  air  come  and  lodge  in  the  branches  thereof."  The 
man  who  sowed  the  mustard  seed  was  but  an  instru- 
ment in  the  furtherance  of  a  Divine  purpose.  The 
secret  potentialities  of  the  seed  did  not  come  from  him, 
nor  the  mysterious  process  by  which  it  grew  into  a 
tree.  He  co-operated  with  the  will  of  God,  as  sun  and 
rain  and  soil  co-operated  with  it,  and  the  predestined 
result  followed.  The  Christian  Church  is  thus  a 
Divine  creation,  not  an  ordinary  human  institution. 
Man  did  not  make  her,  and  the  "  ministers  and 
stewards  "  of  her  Sacraments  have  no  more  original 


GUARDIAN  OF  REVEALED    TRUTH.  251 

power  than  had  the  hiisbaudiuan  ^vho  planted  the 
mustard  seed  in  his  tiekl. 

Such  beinir  tlie  ori<nn  of  the  Church,  what  is  liei* 
end  ?  For  wliat  purpose  was  she  founded  ?  Her  end 
is  twofold :  first,  to  guard  and  propa<^oite  revealed 
truth ;  secondly,  to  be,  in  the  pregnant  language  of 
Moehler,  an  organ  for  "the  extension  of  the  Incar- 
nation" to  the  fallen  race  of  man.  Let  us  consider 
the  Church  in  these  two  aspects. 

1.  She  is  a  Divinely  appointed  guardian  and 
preacher  of  revealed  truth.  I  say  revealed,  not  Divine 
truth.  For  all  truths  are  equally  Divine.  But  there  are 
many  truths  which  need  no  special  revelation  :  truths 
of  geometry,  of  philosophy,  of  physical  science,  of 
politics,  and  the  like.  These  man  can  discover  for 
himself  by  means  of  the  faculties  which  God  has 
given  him.  But  there  is  a  body  of  truths  which  lie 
outside  the  range  of  the  human  reason — those,  namely, 
which  relate  to  the  spiritual  world.  Reason,  indeed, 
apprehended  some  of  them  imperfectly  and  groped 
instinctively  after  others,  such  as  the  existence  of 
God,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  doctrine  of 
retribution,  which  we  find  prevalent  among  Pagan 
nations.  But  they  were  held  dimly  and  in  fragments 
only,  not  in  their  totality  and  their  correlation.  These 
ti-uths  God  revealed  gradually,  through  the  Hebrew 


252  THE   CHURCH  CANNOT  MAKE 

nation,  till  "  the  fulness  of  time "  when  Christ 
"brought  life  and  immortality  to  light."  Hence  St. 
Jude  exhorts  Christians  to  "contend  earnestly  for 
the  faith  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  to  the 
saints."  ^  Similarly  St.  Paul  bids  Timothy  "  hold  fast 
the  form  (vTroTviruymg,  i.e.  outline  or  summary)  of  sound 
words  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  in  faith  and  love 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  good  deposit  {Triv  KaXriv 
7rapaKaTadi}KY}v)  which  was  committed  unto  thee  guard 
through  the  Holy  Ghost  Which  dwelleth  in  us."  ^  The 
Christian  Faith  is  therefore  a  "deposit,"  a  body  of 
Divine  truths  delivered  over  to  the  custody  of  the 
Christian  Church — "  the  Church  of  the  living  God," 
which  is  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  ^  This 
is  the  great  distinction  between  revealed  truth  and 
other  truths.  They  are  in  a  state  of  indefinite  pro- 
gression. Their  bulk  increases  year  by  year,  and  new 
discoveries  are  constantly  exploding  errors  which  had 
been  held  as  truths.  For  human  reason  being  fallible, 
its  progress  is  not  in  a  straight  line,  but  zigzag,  like 
the  mountain  climber,  who  is  obliged  to  tack  as  he 
proceeds,  and  is  forced  occasionally  to  retrace  his  steps 
in  order  to  avoid  a  precipice  here,  or  a  ravine  there, 
which  he  had  not  observed  from  his  lower  altitude. 

*  Verse  3.     "  The  saints "  here,   and  in  most  parts  of  the  New 
Testament,  means  Christians. 

2  2  Tim.  i.  13-14  ^  ^  ^-^_  -_  ;l5. 


ADDITIONS   TO    THE  FA  IT  IF.  253 

The  creecd  of  Christendom,  on  the  other  hand,  was  de- 
livered "  once  for  all ; "  from  which  it  follows  that  there 
can  be  no  fresh  accretion,  no  new  articles  of  faith. 
Nothino-  can  be  an  article  of  faith  now  which  was  not 
in  substance  an  article  of  faith  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul. 
But  if  that  be  so,  how  are  we  to  defend  the  Niccne 
Creed,  wliicli  is  undoubtedly  in  one  sense  an  addition 
to  "the  form  of  sound  words"  which  St.  Paul  bids 
Timothy  to  guard  ?  The  consubstantiality  of  the  Son 
with  the  Father  was  imposed  as  an  article  of  necessary 
faith  in  the  Council  of  Nicffia,  and  was  inserted  into 
the  universal  creed  of  the  Church.  But  was  that 
dogma  really  an  addition  to  the  Faith  ?  Was  it  an 
article  of  faith  in  the  sense  of  revealing  something 
which  Christians  had  not  believed  before  ?  A  little 
reflection  will  show  that  it  was  not.  The  Church 
assembled  at  the  Council  of  Nica3a  to  examine  and 
pass  judgment  on  the  heresy  of  Arius.  What  did 
Arius  teach?  It  was  extremely  difficult  for  some 
time  to  find  out  what  he  really  held,  so  subtle  and 
ajiile  and  evasive  was  his  method  of  controversy.  He 
accepted  the  Incarnation  in  a  sense.  He  acknowledged 
the  Pre-existenceof  Christ,  His  miraculous  Conception 
and  Birth,  His  Resurrection  and  Ascension.  Nay, 
more:  he  admitted  that  He  was  the  Logos  of  the 
Father  and  the  Creator  of  the   universe.      In  short 


254  HO  MOO  US  ION  AN  EXAMPLE. 

there  is  not  a  title  or  an  attribute  ascribed  to  our 
Lord  in  the  Bible  which  Arius  did  not  freely  grant  to 
Him.  But  when  driven  into  a  corner  by  the  superior 
dialectic  of  the  youthful  Athanasius,  he  declared  that 
"  there  was  a  time  when  Christ  was  not."  That  was, 
of  course,  to  degrade  Christ  to  the  rank  of  a  mere 
creature,  and  it  involved  Arius,  moreover,  in  the  guilt 
of  idolatry ;  for  to  offer  Divine  worship  to  a  creature, 
though  "  the  highest  of  the  creatures/'  as  Arius  con- 
fessed Christ  to  be,  was  formal  idolatry ;  the  distance 
between  the  highest  creature  and  the  lowest  being 
insignificant  as  compared  with  the  gulf  between  the 
highest  creature  and  Infinite  God.  Now,  if  a  Christian 
had  at  any  time  from  the  first  Christian  Pentecost 
maintained  that  Christ  was  a  mere  creature,  he  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  condemned  as  a  heretic.  The 
formula  of  the  Nicene  Council,  then,  added  nothing 
to  the  original  deposit  of  faith,  nothing  to  the  sub- 
stance of  Christian  belief.  What  it  did  was  to  guard 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  by  a  definition  which  effec- 
tually protected  the  creed  of  the  Church  from  mutila- 
tion. There  is,  therefore,  no  analogy  between  the 
additions  made  in  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the  imposition 
on  Christians,  as  articles  of  faith,  of  what  had  pre- 
viously been  debatable  and  debated  opinions.  It  is  of 
the  essence  of  an  article  of  necessary  Christian  faith, 


UNGUARDED   CREEDS  RUN  TO   SEED.  255 

not  nion'ly  that  it  sliould  be  true,  but  tluit  it 
should  belonfT  to  tlie  oriiriiial  dei^osit.  Gravitation 
and  capillary  attraction  are  true  as  facts  of  physical 
science ;  but  to  insist  on  belief  in  them  as  articles 
of  Christian  communion  would  be  a  heresy. 

But  why  should  such  an  organization  as  the  Church 
be  necessary  to  guard  the  truths  of  Christianity  ? 
One  very  important  reason  is  that  there  is  a  tendency 
in  human  language,  left  to  itself,  to  shed  portions 
of  its  meaning,  and  also  to  acquire  fresh  meanings  as 
it  passes  through  the  minds  of  successive  generations. 
"  Person,"  "  parson,"  "  conversation,"  "  sacrament," 
"  emperor,"  "  eucharist,"  are  familiar  illustrations  of 
this  process.  The  consequence  is  that  where  there 
is  no  organized  living  tradition  keeping  alive  and 
interpreting  through  the  ages  all  the  ideas  which 
the  words  originally  connoted,  the  ideas  fade  from 
memory  one  by  one,  till  at  last  they  vanish  entirely, 
and  their  place  is  usurped  by  other  and  perhaps 
contrary  ideas.^     This  explains  the  tendency  to  run 

*  The  late  John  Stuart  Mill  has  a  striking  and  valuable  passage 
on  this  point  which  is  too  long  to  quote  at  length.  I  quote  the 
following  as  a  sample  : — "  Considering,  tlien,  that  the  human  mind, 
in  different  generations,  occupies  itself  with  different  things,  and  in 
one  age  is  led  by  the  circumstances  which  surround  it  to  lix  more 
of  its  attention  upon  one  of  the  properties  of  a  thing,  in  another 
age  upon  another,  it  is  natural  and  inevitable  that  in  every  age  a 
certain  portion  of  our  recorded  experience  and  trudiUuuai  know* 


256  STUART  MILL'S  OPINION. 

to  seed  which  characterizes  the  creed  o£  all  com- 
munities which  have  separated  from  the  Church. 
On  the  other  hand,  bodies  of  Christians  which  have 
retained  their  organic  connection  with  the  original 
constitution  of  the  Church  may  become  corrupt  in 
practice,  may  even  distort  or  overlay  the  creed  with 
illicit  and  debasing  developments ;  yet  so  long  as  they 
cling  to  the  ancient  formularies  and  the  ecclesiastical 
organism  which  is  their  appointed  guardian,  they 
hold  within  them  a  recuperative  energy  which  en- 
ables them  to  recover  lost  ground  and  occupy  their 
ancient  position.     Like  the  tree  in  Nebuchadnezzar's 

ledge,  not  being  continually  suggested  by  the  pursuits  and  inquiries 
with  which  mankind  are  at  that  time  engrossed,  should  fall  asleep, 
as  it  were,  and  fade  from  the  memory.  .  .  .  Thus  there  is  a  perpetual 
oscillation  in  spiritual  (I  do  not  mean  religious)  truths,  and  in  spiritual 
doctrines  of  any  significance  even  when  uct  truths.  Their  meaning 
is  almost  always  in  a  process  of  being  lost  or  of  being  recovered. 
Whoever  has  attended  to  the  history  of  the  more  serious  convictions 
of  mankind — of  the  opinions  by  which  the  general  conduct  of  their 
lives  is,  or  as  they  conceive  ought  to  be,  more  especially  regulated — 
is  aware  that,  even  when  recognizing  verbally^ the  same  doctrines, 
they  attach  to  them  at  different  periods  a  greater  or  less  quantity, 
and  even  a  different  kind,  of  meaning.  The  words  in  their  original 
acceptation  connoted,  and  the  propositions  expressed,  a  complication 
of  outward  facts  and  inward  feelings,  to  different  portions  of  which 
the  general  mind  is  more  particularly  alive  in  different  generations 
of  mankind.  To  common  minds,  only  that  portion  of  the  meaning 
is  in  each  generation  suggested  of  which  that  generation  possesses 
the  counterpart  in  its  own  habitual  experience." — System  of  Logic, 
ii.  pp.  219-225. 


ORICIXAL   COXSriTUTIOX  OF   THE   CIirRCH.      257 

(liViun,  ('iil^'  the  stunip  may  rciiiaiu  with  its  roots  in 
till' soil :  yet  out  of  tliat  stump  branches  and  leaves 
niifl  fruit  ma\-  ofrow  au<l  floui-isli.  So  loiii^  as  tin- 
community  remains  rooted  in  tlie  original  constitution 
of  the  Church  it  liolds  tlie  potentiality  of  reproduction. 
'1.  But  what  is  the  original  constitution  of  the 
( 'hurch  ?  "  It  is  evident,"  says  the  English  Book 
<»f  C'(^nimoii  Prayer, '' unto  all  men  diligently  reading 
the  holy  Scripture  and  ancient  Authors,  that  from 
the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  these  Orders  of 
Ministers  in  Christ's  Church ;  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons.  .  .  .  And  therefore,  to  the  intent  that  these 
Orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used  and 
esteemed,  in  the  Church  of  England,  no  man  shall  be 
accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or 
Deacon  in  the  Church  of  England,  or  suffered  to 
execute  an}^  of  the  said  Functions,  except  he  1)e  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  admitted  thereunto,  according  to 
the  Form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  formerly 
Episcopal  Consecration,  or  Ordination."  The  historical 
assertion  made  in  this  passage  can  no  longer  be  dis- 
puted by  any  one  who  is  competent  to  weigh  the 
evidence  dispassionately.  The  Bishop  of  l^urham's 
exhaustive  and  triumphant  vindication  of  the  Ignatimi 
Epistles — a  splendid  monument  of  einidition  of  which 
the    Church    of    England    may    well    be    proiul — has 

S 


258  DR.   LlGIITFOOrS   VIEW 

settled  the  question.  The  Ignatian  Epistles  place 
at  least  two  facts  plainly  beyond  dispute,  namely, 
tirst,  that  Diocesan  Episcopacy  was  then  the  universal 
and  undisputed  form  of  Church  government ;  secondly, 
that  the  diocese,  under  the  administration  oi  its 
Bishop,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  was  the  unit  of  the 
Church.  The  Bishop  stood  at  the  summit  of  the 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy.  In  him  the  Church  was 
summed  up.  From  him  it  could  be  reproduced. 
This  is  unquestionably  the  doctrine  of  the  Ignatian 
Epistles.  The  Bishop  of  Durham  has  often  been 
quoted  as  favouring  the  notion  that  Episcopacy  does 
not  belong  to  the  original  constitution  of  the  Churcli. 
But  in  the  very  essay — his  Dissertation  on  the 
Christian  Ministry — to  which  appeal  is  made  in 
support  of  that  opinion,  Dr.  Lightfoot  asserts  that 
"  unless  w^e  have  recourse  to  a  sweeping  condemnation 
of  received  documents,  it  seems  vain  to  deny  that 
early  in  the  second  century  the  Episcopal  Office  was 
firmly  and  widely  established.  Thus,  during  the  last 
three  decades  of  the  first  century,  and  consequently 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  last  surviving  Apostle,  this 
change  must  have  been  brought  about " — the  change, 
that  is,  from  a  Presbyterate  governed  by  Apostles  to 
Diocesan  Episcopacy.  To  admit  as  much  as  this  is 
surely  to  admit  everything.     For  if  Episcopacy  "  was 


VIXDICATKD   JiV  AXALOGY.  259 

liriuly  and  wiik'ly  established  "  ilurini;-  tlic  Jil'iliiuc  of 
tlie  latest  surviving;  Apostle,  it  can  liardly  be  disputed 
tliat  it  is  tlu'  i"«>nii  of  Chui'eli  gcjveniiiieiit  \vlneli  is 
according  to  tlie  mind  ot*  Christ.  "  Tlie  latest  snr- 
vivini;  Apostle" — "  tlie  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved" — 
ijuist  have  learnt,  durinij^  the  forty  days'  intercourse 
with  th(3  risen  Saviour  before  the  Ascension,  the 
mind  of  his  Master  on  so  \ital  a  question,  and  it  is 
simply  inconceivable  that  he  should  have  sanctioned 
any  ecclesiastical  polity  which  was  not  in  full  har- 
mony with  his  Lord's  instructions  while  "speaking 
of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of  God."^ 

])r.  Lightfoot,  it  is  true,  argues  that  Episcopacy 
grew  by  way  of  development  out  of  the  needs  of 
the  expanding  Church.  But  that  does  not  prove 
that  it  was  not  an  integral  part  of  the  original  desio-n 
The  Diaconate  certainly  originated  in  an  unlooked- 
for  emergency,  and  then  became  a  permanent  office 
in  the  Christian  Ministry.  Why  should  it  l)e  thought 
<lerogatory  to  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  Epis- 
copate that,  viewed  on  its  human  side,  it  grew 
naturally  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the  time  ? 
Surely  this  is  the  ordinary  method  of  Divine  Pro- 
vidence. 1'lie  Aaronic  Priesthood  was  doubtless  of 
J3ivinc  origin,  and  tlie  story  of  Korah,  Dathau,  and 
'  Acts  i.  3. 


26o  THE  AARONIC  PRIESTHOOD. 

tlicir  company  shows  how  careful  God  was  to  vin- 
dicate its  Divine  authoritj^  Yet  the  Aaronic  Priest- 
hood was  instituted  in  response  to  the  demand  of 
the  congregation  of  Israel.  During  the  Patriarchal 
period  the  head  of  the  family  was  also  its  priest. 
And  even  when  the  Law  was  delivered  to  the 
Israelites  from  Mount  Sinai  tliere  was  no  regular 
priesthood  to  stand  between  God  and  His  people. 
They  were  all  regarded  as  a  nation  of  priests  until 
their  own  sense  of  unworthiness  caused  them  to 
shrink  back  from  the  awful  privilege.  The  incident 
is  related  b}^  Moses  as  follows : — 

"  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  ye  heard  the  voice  out 
of  the  midst  of  tlie  darkness,  (for  the  mountain  did 
burn  with  fire,)  that  ye  came  near  unto  me,  even  all 
the  heads  of  your  tribes,  and  your  elders  ;  and  ye 
said,  Behold,  the  Lord  our  God  hath  shewed  us  His 
glory  and  His  greatness,  and  we  have  heard  His 
voice  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire  :  we  have  seen  this 
da}^  tJiat  God  doth  talk  with  man,  and  he  liveth. 
Now  therefore  wh}^  should  we  die  ?  for  this  great 
fire  will  consume  us :  if  we  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Lord  our  God  any  more,  then  we  shall  die.  For  who 
is  there  of  all  fiesh,  that  hatli  heard  the  voice  of  the 
living  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as 
we  have,  and  lived?      Go  thou  near,  and   hear  all 


KATJOXALE   OF  SACERDOTALISM.  261 

thiit  the  Lord  (nil-  God  sliall  say:  and  speak  tliou 
unto  us  all  that  the  Lord  our  God  shall  speak  unto 
tliee  ;  and  wo  will  liear  it,  and  do  it.  And  the  Lord 
'licard  the  voice  of  your  words,  when  yc  spake  luito 
nie:  and  the  Lord  said  unto  me,  I  have  heard  the 
\()iee  of  the  words  of  this  people,  which  they  have 
spoken  unto  thee  :  they  have  well  said  all  that  they 
iiave  spoken."  ^ 

Accordingly  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  consecrated 
to  the  priesthood,  and  they  became  the  appointed 
mediators  between  Jehovah  and  the  congregation  of 
Israel.  The  Jewish  Priesthood,  therefore,  and  indeed 
priesthood  everywhere — in  other  words,  the  principle 
of  sacerdotalism — is  the  natural  outcome  of  man's 
instinctive  feeling  of  unworthiness  to  hold,  in  his 
fallen  condition,  direct  intercourse  with  his  Maker. 
This  does  not  arise  so  nuich  from  fear  of  God's  wrath 
as  from  a  sense  of  incongruity  between  His  awful 
majesty  and  unspeakable  perfections  and  our  cnvn 
selHshness  and  vileness.  We  instinctively  shrink  from 
a  nature  which  we  feel  is  inuneasurably  superior  to  our 
own;  and  the  more  we  love  tliat  natuiv,  the  more 
we  crave  for  union  with  it,  the  more  we  find  ourselves 
drawn  irresistibly  toward  it— the  deeper  grows  that 
feeling  of  unworthiness  which  drives  us,  like  our  first 

»  Deiii.  V.  2rj-28. 


262  WHY  GOD  IS  A 

parents,  to  hide  ourselves  from  the  very  presence  which 
is  nevertheless  our  joy  and  our  life.  The  fear  of 
punishment  is  not  nearly  as  painful  as  the  fear  of 
losing  a  love  which  has  possessed  us ;  and  hence  we 
all  Avear  masks,  more  or  less  opaque,  in  our  inter- 
course with  each  otlier.  The  very  strength  of  our 
love  is  apt  to  forbid  a  full  disclosure  of  our  inner 
self  to  an  object  of  tender  human  attachment,  lest 
fuller  knowledge  might  dispel  the  illusion  and  alienate 
the  love  for  which  we  pino  : — 

**  Eacli  in  his  hidden  sphere  of  joy  or  tv-oo, 

Our  hermit  spirits  range  and  dwell  apart ; 
Our  eyes  see  all  around  in  gloom  or  glow- 
Hues  of  their  own,  fresh  borrowed  from  the  lieart. 

**  And  it  is  well,  .  .   . 

"  For  what  if  Heaven  for  once  its  searching  light 
Lent  to  some  partial  eye,  disclosing  all 
The  rude  bad  thoughts  that  in  our  bosom's  night 
"Wander  at  large,  nor  hoed  love's  gentle  thrall  P 

*'  Who  would  not  shun  the  dreary  uncouth  place  ? 
As  if,  fond  leaning  where  her  infant  slept, 
A  mother's  arm  a  serpent  should  embrace  ; 
So  might  we  friendless  live,  and  die  unwept.'* 

If,  then,  deep  love  for  a  fellow-creature  can  thus 
repel  while  it  attracts,  it  is  obvious  that  this  feelinjr 
of  repulsion  must  be  intensified  into  a  paroxysm  of 
pain  Avhen  the  object  of  love  is  the  very  "  King  in 
His  beauty,"  He   Who  made  the  heart   of   man  for 


CONSUMING  FIRE.  26^ 

Himself,  and  lias  iicvci-  ceased  to  entice  it  willi 
"cords  of  a  man,  witli  l»ands  of  love."  ^  "Pain  is 
the  deepest  thin^^  in  our  nature,"  sa^'s  Arthur  Hallani. 
It  lies  latent  at  tlie  root  of  our  deepest  happiness. 
Sir  John  Herschcl  tells  a  story  which  shows  how 
a  sudden  revelation  even  of  extraordinary  material 
heauty  imparts  a  shock  of  intolerable  pain.  Wliilc 
111'  was  one  night  scanning  a  cloudless  sky  Sirius,  in 
all  its  dazzling  splendour,  suddenly  crossed  the  field 
of  his  largo  telescope,  and  the  vision  was  so  beautiful 
that  it  gave  the  astronomer  a  shock  of  such  acute  pain 
that  he  was  obliged  to  close  his  eyes  to  prevent  his 
fainting.  Cardinal  Newman  illustrates  the  same 
idea  in  his  beautiful  Drcdrih  of  Gcnmilns:  Tlu^ 
disembodied  spirit,  impelled  by  irresistible  loN'e, 
rushes  from  earth  into  the  glory  of  the  Beatific 
Vision,  and  tlifu  drops,  like  a  singed  moth,  and  sings 
plaintively,  "  Take  me  away,"  until  the  unprepared 
faculties  are  made  fit  to  bear  the  overpowering  beauty. 
"  For  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire  ;"-  and  necessarily 
so  to  all  who  are  ungodlike.  AVe  have  a  parable  of 
this  impressive  truth  in  the  incident  of  the  Burning 
Bush  on  Horeb,  to  which  I  have  alread\'  refcrretl. 
"  The  Bush  burnt  with  fire,  and  the  Bush  was  not 
consumed."  ]>ut  the  moment  Moses  "  turned  Jiside," 
»  llosca  xi.  4.  '  Ucb.  .\ii.  21). 


264  MAN  "  IN  A    CLIFT  OF  THE  ROCK'' 

and  approached  the  glory  of  the  Divine  Presence,  a 
warning  voice  stopped  him :  "  Moses !  Moses !  Draw 
not  nigh  hither."  Why  ?  Because  God  is  of  necessity 
"  a  consuming  fire  "  to  anything  which  is  antagonistic 
to  Him.  In  Nature  there  is  nothing  antagonistic  to 
Ood,  for  there  is  no  free  will  to  resist  Him.  "  He  hath 
given  them  a  law  which  shall  not  be  broken,"  and  so 
they  can  bear  contact  with  His  Presence  and  live.  But 
in  the  best  of  men  there  is  an  element  of  selfishness — 
that  is,  of  antagonism  to  Him  Whose  essence  is  love, 
which  is  the  antithesis  of  selfishness.  Therefore  God 
deals  mercifully  with  us,  as  He  dealt  of  old  with  Moses 
when  he  desired  to  sec  His  glory :  "  Thou  canst  not 
see  My  face :  for  there  shall  no  man  see  Me,  and  live. 
And  the  Lord  said.  Behold,  there  is  a  place  by  Me, 
and  thou  shalt  stand  upon  a  rock :  and  it  shall  come 
to  pass,  while  My  glory  passeth  by,  that  I  will  put 
thee  in  a  clift  of  the  rock,  and  will  cover  thee  with  My 
liand  while  I  pass  by:  and  I  will  take  away  Mine 
hand,  and  thou  shalt  see  My  back  parts :  but  My  face 
shall  not  be  seen."  ^ 

Such  is  the  condition  of  humanity  now.  It  is  "  in 
a  clift  of  the  rock,"  shielded  by  a  loving  hand,  and 
beholding  the  "  back  parts,"  the  afterglow,  of  the 
Divine  glory,  but  not  able  as  yet  to  bear  unconsumed 

^  Exod.  xxxiii.  20-23. 


JEWISH  PRIESTHOOD    TRANSITIOXAL.  2C5 

tlio  Vision  ut*  Beauty.  We  must  remember  that  there 
is,  ill  ^lilton's  phrase,  "  darkness  from  excessive  bright " 
— darkness  whicli  is  caused  by  light  too  bright  for 
unprepared  eyes.^ 

But  the  Israelites  were  not  suffered  to  rest  in  the 
Aaronic  Priesthood  as  a  final  and  unchangeable  dis- 
pensation. It  was  a  provision  suited  to  man's  fallen 
state,  not  to  his  perfection  ;  a  remedy  for  a  disease, 
not  the  normal  condition  of  health.  What  tlie 
children  of  Israel  were  to  aim  at  was  to  make  them- 
selves worthy,  as  an  entire  people,  to  offer  acceptable 
service  to  Almighty  God.  The  Aaronic  Priesthood 
wa,s  a  provisional  discipline,  an  object  lesson  to  that 
end.  They  w^ere  reminded  ;  that,  in  spite  of  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  they  all  remained  ideally  "  a 
kingdom  of  priests,  a  holy  nation."  They  were 
unworthy  now  to  realize  that  high  ideal;  but 
they  were  not  to  lose  sight  of  it.  They  were  to 
strive  after  it ;  and  to  keep  them  in  perpetual 
remembrance  of  it,  there  were  several  rites  of  a 
sacerdotal    character,   such   as    the    sacrifice    of    the 

*  " .  .  .  noi  scmo  usciti  fuoro 
Del  maggior  corpo  al  cicl  ch'  o  pura  luce; 

Luce  intellettual  piena  d'amorc, 
■Amor  di  vero  ben  pion  di  lotizia, 
Letizia  che  trascende  ogni  dolzore." 

Dante,  Vavadi&o,  xxx.  40. 


266  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY  LIKEWISE. 

Paschal  Lamb,   in  which  the   people   at   large    were 
bidden  to  participate. 

The  Christian  Ministry  is  in  like  manner  only  a 
provisional  arrangement.  St.  Peter  addresses  the 
whole  congregation  of  Christians  in  the  language 
in  which  Moses  described  the  priestly  character  of 
ancient  Israel.  He  calls  them  a  "  royal  priesthood ;  " 
an  ideal  of  Christian  perfection  which  St.  John  saw 
realized  when  he  heard  the  saints  in  bliss  mvincr 
thanks  for  having  been  made  "  kings  and  priests  unto 
God."  And  just  as  a  Hebrew  layman  could  sacri- 
fice the  Paschal  Lamb,  so  the  Christian  layman  can 
perform  quasi-sacerdotal  functions,  such  as  baptizing 
and  taking:  his  share  in  the  orreat  oblation  of  the 
Eucharist — a  truth  which  was  symbolized  in  ancient 
times,  and  even  now  in  Eastern  Christendom,  by  the 
custom  of  the  faithful  laity  offering  the  sacramental 
elements  to  the  officiating^  minister,  who  then  con- 
secrated  them  on  behalf  of  the  congregation  as  their 
representative  and  ministerial  organ.  And,  what  is 
still  more  remarkable,  the  Latin  Church  in  the  Middle 
Ages,  when  the  claims  of  the  priesthood  were  pushed 
to  extravagant  lengths,  claimed  for  tho  laity  a  quasi- 
sacerdotal  power  even  in  respect  to  what  was  called 
"  sacramental  confession."  The  practice  of  auricular 
— that  is,  private — confession  came  into  vogue  by  way 


PRIESTHOOD   OF  LAITY  267 

of  relaxjition  on  thf  orioinal  <lisci[)lin<\  wlilch  cnjoincfl 
on  penitents  a  public  confession  in  the  presence  of  the 
(•onnrri\2^iition.  And  the  absohition  tlien  ^^iven  was 
the  absohition  of  the  congregation  pronounced  through 
the  mouth  of  its  ministerial  representative.  This  par- 
ticipation of  tlie  laity  even  in  "  the  power  of  the  keys" 
is  fully  recognized  by  the  leading  authorities  among 
the  Schoolmen.  St.  Thomas  Ac^uinas,  for  example, 
discusses  the  (juestion  "whether  confession  can  ever 
be  made  except  to  a  priest,"  and  he  decides  that  a 
layman  may  in  case  of  necessity  hear  a  penitent's 
confession.  The  layman,  he  says,  cannot  complete 
"  the  sacrament  of  penance,"  since  he  does  not 
possess  the  power  of  granting  absolution.  But  this 
defect  "the  High  Priest  supplies."  And  therefore 
"  confession  made  to  a  layman  is  in  a  manner  sacra- 
mental." ^  Peter  Lond»ard  answers  in  like  manner 
the  question  "  whether  it  is  sufficient  to  confess  to  a 
layman."  "  If  a  priest  cannot  be  had,"  he  saj's,  "  con- 
fession   must    l)e    made    to    one's  neighbour  or   com- 

'  "  Sc J  qnando  ncccssitas  innninct,  debet  faccre  pccnitciis  (piotl 
ncccssitas  ex  parte  sua  est,  scilicet  conteri  cfc  confiteri  cui  potest; 
qui  quamvis  sacramentum  perficero  non  possit,  ut  faciat  id  quod  ex 
]iarto  sacerdotis  est,  absolutionem  scilicet,  drfcctuui  taincn  Sumivvn 
Sacerdos  svpplet.  Nihilmnimis  co7}fessio  laico  ex  dcfectn  saccrdotin 
facta  sacramentalis  est  qnodammodn^  quamvis  non  sit  sacramentum 
perfectum,  quia  decst  ei  quod  est  ex  parte  sacerdotis." — Sn  m  m .  ThcnL^ 
Supplem.,  pt.  iii.  qnocst.  viii.  art.  i. 


268  ALWAYS  RECOGNIZED. 

panion,"  the  will  being  accepted  for  the  deed.  "  For 
the  lepers  were  cleansed  on  their  way  to  show  them- 
selves to  the  priests,  before  they  reached  them."  ^ 
Albertus  Magnus,  another  great  name,  goes  beyond 
this ;  for  he  affirms  that  a  layman  possesses  in  case  of 
necessity  the  power  of  absolving.^ 

Thus  we  see  that  at  no  period  of  her  history  has 
the  Church  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  all  Christians 
are  potentially  and  idealty  priests  of  God.  If  man 
had  never  fallen  there  would  have  been  no  need  of  a 
special  priesthood.  All  would  have  been  alike  worthy 
to  offer  God  an  acceptable  service,  as  all  will  be  here- 
after in  heaven.     This  is  the  ideal  at  which  we  are  to 

'  Be  Sacram.,  lib.  iv.  distinct,  xvii. 

•  He  distinguishes  between  five  kinds  of  absolution.  The  fourth 
"est  officio  ministrorum  concessa  sacerdotibus.  Et  ultima  ex  unitate 
fidei  et  caritatis,  et  hoec  pro  necessitatis  articnlo  descendit  in  omnevi 
hominem  ad  proximo  siibveniendum :  et  hanc  potestatem  hahet  laicus 
i7i  articnlo  necessitatis"  (Sent.,  lib.  iv.  dist.  xvii.  art.  58-59).  Two 
remarkable  instances  of  confession  to  laymen  have  come  down  to  us 
from  the  Middle  Ages.  It  is  related  in  Le  Loi/al  Servitenr  that  when 
Bayard,  the  Chevalier  sans  peur  et  sans  reproche,  received  his  death- 
"wound  on  the  field  of  Eomagnano,  and  was  carried  to  his  tent,  he 
grasped  his  sword,  and,  fixing  his  eyes  on  the  hilt  for  a  cross,  bade 
his  faithful  esquire  hear  his  confession.  The  other  example  is  related 
by  Joinville.  When  Joinville  and  his  companions  were  taken  prisoners 
by  the  Sai-acens,  and  were  waiting  in  hourly  expectation  of  death, 
the  Constable  of  Cyprus  knelt  down  and  made  his  confession  to 
Joinville.  "And  I  gave  him,"  says  Joinville,  "such  absolution  as 
God  enabled  me  to  give  (Et  je  lui  donnay  telle  absolucion  comme 
Dieu  m'en  donnoit  le  povoir)." 


GOD'S  CURE   FOR  SELFISllXESS.  269 

aim  ;  ;ni<l  in  ordci-  to  krcp  our  unwortliiin.'ss  ever 
Iti't'orc  us,  and  tlicreby  stinuilatc  us  to  persevere  in 
the  narrow  way,  it  has  pleased  Mini  to  institute  an 
order  of  men,  personal!}'  as  unworthy  as  the  rest,  to 
Ik*  His  "  and)assad()rs"  on  cartli,  and  '  nnnistcrs  an<l 
stewards  of  His  mysteries:"  not  as  a  easte  separate 
from  tlu^  hvit}',  hut  as  tlic  autliori/cfl  orc^ans  and 
representatives  of  the  laity. 

But  there  was  another  reason  foi-  tlie  institution  of 
the  Christian  Ministry  besides  tliat  of  teaching  man 
that  lie  was  in  liis  fallen  condition  incapal)le  of  offer- 
ing acceptable  service  to  Ahnighty  (fod.  Thei-e  is  in 
human  nature  an  inborn  tendency  to  seltisluiess.  In 
order  to  counteract  this  tendency,  to  which  even  the 
best  c»f  men  are  moi'e  or  less  liable.  (Joel  has  made  us 
necessary  to  each  otluM-.  On  tliei-iglit  hand  and  on  th(^ 
left,  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  we  need  each  other  s 
help.  Neither  in  health  or  sickness,  in  joy  or  sorrow, 
in  temporal  matters  or  in  spiritual,  can  we  afford  to 
stan<l  alone.  Man  is.  of  all  creatures,  tlie  m(')st  help- 
less when  lie  is  born.  The  hour  of  his  birth  would  be 
that  of  his  death,  were  there  no  loving  hands  to  tend 
him.  And  all  through  his  mortal  life,  not  c)nly  his  hap- 
piness and  well-being,  but  his  \'ery  existence,  depends 
upon  this  nunistry  of  mutual  service.  So  that  oui- 
very  selfishness  is  turncnl  into  an  antidote  against  itself. 


^7o  CHRISTIANS  ARE  A   FAMILY. 

If  we  could  go  through  this  life  to  our  eternal  homes 
as  isolated  units,  there  would  be  nothing  to  check  our 
innate  selfishness.  But  human  beings  are  no  mere 
aggregate  of  independent  units,  each  complete  in  itself 
and  striving  after  its  own  solitary  perfection.  They 
are  members  of  one  family,  ''  the  Avhole  family  in 
heaven  and  on  earth,"  and  their  mutual  inter- 
dependence radiates  from  the  centre  of  the  family  to 
the  circumference  of  the  race.  Even  the  geographical 
arrangements  of  the  globe,  its  varieties  of  climates 
and  productions,  are  made  to  minister  to  the  same 
end;  and  the  dictates  of  enlightened  selfishness  are 
slowly  teaching  the  nations  of  the  earth  that  they 
have  need  of  one  another  \  that  if  one  member  suffer, 
the  rest  will  in  the  long-run  suffer  with  it ;  that  ex- 
clusiveness  is  therefore  a  suicidal  policy,  the  true 
secret  of  a  nation's  material  prosperity  lying,  not  in 
jealous  hugging  of  its  peculiar  treasures,  but  in 
exchanging  them  for  those  of  its  neighbours. 

Thus  does  God  contrive,  in  the  domain  of  things 
temporal,  to  make  our  very  selfishness  the  instrument 
of  its  own  destruction;  and  His  method  is  the  same  in 
things  spiritual.  Through  all  the  ordinances  of  the 
Christian  Church  He  alone  is  the  Giver  and  the  Source 
of  all  spiritual  blessings.  Men,  in  whatever  office, 
are  but  instruments  and  channels  of  His  gifts.    Indeed 


PERSOyAL   IXFLUEXCE.  271 

it  is  vriy  tcrriMe  to  tliiiilv  liow  rcsjjonsildo  we  are  i'or 
<iacli  utlicr's  weal  oi-  woe  :  liow  unceasing  is  our  re- 
ciprocal intiuence,  and  how  unconsciously  it  is  for  the 
most  part  exercised.  It  is  probably  no  exaggeration 
to  say  that  no  two  liinnan  beings  ever  came  into  close 
contact  with  each  (jther,  even  for  one  short  hour,  with- 
out both  of  them  being  the  better  ov  the  worse  for  it. 
Physiologists  tell  us  that  most  of  the  diseases  which 
affiict  Iiuman  nature  are  caused  by  living  organisms 
which  ai'e  inibilx'd  into  the  body — organisms  so 
minute  as  to  be  scarcely  visible,  yet  so  potent  that 
they  may  l)reed  disease  and  destroy  life.  And  is  it 
not  true  that  each  of  us  exhales  a  UKjral  atmosphere 
charged  with  living  germs  which  infect  for  good  or 
ill  the  souls  who  come  within  the  sphere  of  our 
intiuence  ?  This  is  a  power  much  more  mysterious  and 
awful  than  any  claimed  by  the  Christian  Ministry  ; 
yet  it  is  a  power  which  each  of  us  possesses  in  our 
measure  and  degree. 

Consider  in  this  connection  the  comparatively  slow 
progress  of  Christianity  in  modern  times  compared  with 
its  rapid  propagati(;n  during  the  tirst  few  centuries  of 
its  existence.  Christianity  has  now  been  in  the  world 
for  nearly  nineteen  centuries,  yet  the  majority  of 
mankind  are  still  outside  its  pale.  In  the  dawn  of  its 
career  the  Faith  of  Christ  carried  all  l^efore  it.     The 


272  SLOW  PROGRESS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

philosophy  of  Greece  and  the  statecraft  and  legions  of 
imperial  Rome  were  alike  powerless  to  arrest  its 
progress.  It  penetrated  like  an  epidemic  into  the  hut 
of  the  savage  and  the  palace  of  the  Caesars,  and  led 
captive  Jew  and  Gentile,  Greek  and  barbarian,  bond 
and  free.  What  has  the  Christian  Church  done  in 
comparison  with  this  during  the  last  few  centuries  ? 
On  a  fair  balance  of  its  gains  and  losses,  must  it  not 
be  sorrowfully  owned  that  it  has  done  little  more  tlian 
hold  its  own  ?  And  what  is  the  explanation  ?  Partly 
the  indolence  and  selfishness  of  man,  and  the  decay  of 
that  enthusiasm  of  humanity,  radiant  with  Divino 
love,  which  extorted  from  the  heathen  in  ancient  days 
the  tribute  of  reluctant  admiration ;  and  partly  the 
humiliatino^  fact  that  Christians  have  turned  as^ainst 
each  other  the  arms  Avhich  they  should  have  em- 
ployed in  extending  the  frontiers  of  their  Master's 
kingdom.  In  other  words,  the  purposes  of  God  are 
so  far  baffled  because  He  has  entrusted  the  execution 
of  them  to  the  ministry  of  a  fallible  and  selfish 
race.  But  can  there  be  anything  more  mysterious  ? 
Why  is  God's  will  thus  dependent  on  the  will  of  man  ? 
Why  has  He  not-  written  His  Name,  His  attributes, 
His  message,  in  characters  of  light  upon  the  sky,  so 
that  all  men  misfht  see  and  understand  ?  Because  the 
perfection   which   comes  from  development   through 


APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  273 

luonil  discipline  is  not  Jittainaltle  in  tlint  way;  and 
also  because  God's  method  oi  curini:^  us  oi;  our  st'llisii- 
ness  is  to  make  us  necessary  to  each  other. 

Before  concluding  the  sul)ject  of  the  Christian 
Ministry  it  is  necessary  to  consider  briefly  the  question 
of  its  transmission.  Viewed  historically,  we  may  say 
confidently  that  Episcopal  Ordination  has  from  Apos- 
tolic times  been  the  channel  through  which  the  Chris- 
tian Ministry  has  come  down  to  us.  Dr.  Lightfoot's 
vindication  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  as  well  as  his 
admission  in  his  Dissertation  on  the  Ministry  (ali-eady 
quoted),  to  say  nothing  of  a  heap  of  cumulative 
evidence  from  other  sources,  has  placed  that  assertion 
beyond  the  reach  of  reasonable  controversy.  Whether 
Dr.  Lightfoot's  explanation  of  the  circumstances 
which  led  to  the  institution  of  Episcopacy  is  quite 
correct  is  altogether  a  different  question,  and  docs  not 
touch  the  essence  of  the  argument,  which  may  be  de- 
cided either  way  without  prejudice  to  what  is  called 
the  doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession.  The  objections 
to  that  doctrine  which  require  notice  are  two :  first, 
that  the  only  true  succession  to  the  Christian  Ministry 
is  fitness  for  the  office,  ratified  by  an  internal  call ; 
secondly,  the  impossibility  of  demonstrating  the 
integrity  of  the  chain  of  succession  from  Apostolic 
tiniejj. 


274  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

The  first  objectiou  need  not  detain  us.  It  is  based 
on  a  misconception,  and  confuses  two  things  which  are 
radically  distinct :  individual  merit  and  official  com- 
mission. To  affirm  that  any  man  who  shows  fitness 
for  the  Christian  Ministry  needs  no  other  qualifica- 
tion than  his  own  inward  conviction  that  he  is 
called  to  the  office,  sealed  by  a  call  from  a  congre- 
gation, is  as  reasonable  as  it  would  be  to  argue  that 
every  good  strategist  is  i'pso  facto  a  general,  or  every 
good  financier  ij)o  facto  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. 
Of  course  it  would  be  much  better  that  the  men 
best  fitted  for  the  office  should  always  be  appointed 
to  discharge  its  duties,  just  as  it  would  be  desirable 
that  the  best  men  should  always  be  appointed  com- 
manders-in-chief, ambassadors,  and  prime  ministers. 
But  to  be  qualified  for  an  office  is  one  thing:  to 
be  appointed  to  it  is  quite  another.  Men  see  this 
plainly  enough  in  secular  matters.  How  is  it  that 
so  obvious  a  truth  ofiends  them  when  the  sphere  of 
its  operations  is  spiritual  ?  Is  it  because  of  man's 
natural  reluctance  to  believe  in  the  reality  of  processes 
of  which  the  source  and  energy  are  invisible  ?  But 
that  is  an  objection  which  lies  in  the  last  analysis 
against  almost  all  the  processes  of  Nature.  Moreover 
the  various  devices  substituted  for  the  historical 
ministry  of  the  Church  have  not  succeeded  in  always 


DEFECTIVE   EVIDENCE.  275 

providiiiL,^  ministers  whose  credentials  luive  been  at- 
tested by  subsequent  fitness.  Tliat  objection  may 
therefore  be  dismissed  as  irrelevant. 

But  it  is  said  that  tlie  doctrine  of  Apostoliciil 
Succession  is  incapable  of  proof.  That  depends  on 
the  kind  of  proof  which  is  demanded.  If  objectors 
insist  on  such  proof  as  shall  exclude  all  doubt,  it  must 
be  admitted  at  once  that  no  Bisliop  in  Christendom 
can  prove  the  validity  of  his  succession.  A  reasoner, 
however,  cannot  take  as  much  of  an  argument  as  he 
pleases;  he  is  bound  by  the  laws  of  logic  to  apply 
his  principles  all  round,  or  to  leave  them  alone ;  and 
if  the  argument  against  Apostolical  Succession  be 
applied  all  round,  a  good  many  other  beliefs,  must 
be  surrendered  to  the  demands  of  an  inexorable 
scepticism. 

Let  us  then,  first,  consider  the  objection  as  it  has 
been  stated  by  men  who  believe  in  Christianity  and 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  "  Forgeries  of  docu- 
ments" may  have  been  committed,  says  one  of  them, 
and  "  it  will  be  felt  how  unequal  is  the  chain  to  th(^ 
weight  which  it  sustains."  Consequently  the  evidence 
"  must  be  absolutely  certain."  Very  good.  But  how 
will  the  Canon  of  Scripture  stand  such  a  test?  If 
"  absolute  certainty "  is  necessary  in  such  matters, 
how  many  of  the  books  of  citlier  the  Old  or  New 


276  FRAUD    OR  ERROR  POSSIBLE. 

Testament  can  be  traced  back  to  their  reputed 
authors  ?  Not  one.  The  Bible  nowhere  asserts  its 
own  inspiration ;  and  although  habit  has  accustomed 
us  to  regard  it  as  one  book,  it  is  in  fact  a  collection 
o£  writings  marked  by  every  variety  of  time  and 
place,  subject  and  authorship.  It  consists  of  Poems ; 
Histories ;  Proverbs ;  Biographies ;  Songs  and  Psalms ; 
Letters  both  on  public  and  private  affairs ;  a  Code 
of  Civil  and  Religious  Laws;  Prophecies.  And  the 
authors  of  these  belonged  to  every  class  of  human 
society,  and  were  in  some  cases  separated  from  each 
other  by  a  thousand  years.  They  were  kings  and 
warriors,  priests  and  prophets,  legislators,  herdsmen, 
fishermen,  tax-gatherers,  physicians,  and  philosophers. 
Some  of  them  did  not  even  belonfj  to  the  common- 
wealth  of  Israel ;  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Job,  for 
example,  and  Balaam,  whose  discourses  are  included 
in  the  Sacred  Canon.  The  several  books,  moreover, 
are  nearly  all  anonymous,  and  the  authorship  of  some 
of  them  is  absolutely  unknown.  As  far  as  internal 
evidence  alone  goes,  the  Bible  is  nothing  more  than  a 
promiscuous  collection  of  writings  which  the  art  of 
the  binder  has  made  into  one  book — a  book,  too, 
which  did  not  exist  as  we  have  it  for  several  genera- 
tions after  the  death  of  the  latest  of  its  reputed 
authors.     Then,  again,  on  what  principle  were  some 


OBJECTION  PROVES   TOO   MUCH.  277 

books  admitted  into  the  Canon  and  otlicrs  rejected  ? 
The  Books  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom  are  certainly 
more  beautiful  as  compositions  than  those  of  Eccle- 
siiustes  and  Esther,  and  will  to  most  minds  seem  more 
edifying.  And  as  regards  "forgeries  of  documents," 
the  possibility  of  such  a  thing  in  support  of  Apostolical 
Succession  falls  to  zero  when  compared  with  the 
facility  which  existed  for  forgery  in  the  case  of  Holy 
Scripture.  In  short,  every  person  who  adopts  the 
objection  which  I  am  criticising  is  logically  bound  to 
dispute  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  every 
book  in  the  Bible  unless  he  can  trace  back  its  genealogy, 
in  print  and  manuscript,  through  all  the  copies  up  to 
tlie  autographs  of  all  the  writers  from  Genesis  to  the 
Apocalypse.  Indeed  the  objection  strikes  still  deeper. 
The  corner-stone  of  the  whole  editice  of  historic 
Christianity  is  the  Virgin  Conception  and  Birth  of  its 
Founder.  And  what  is  the  proof  of  that  if  pushed  to 
its  last  logical  link  ?  The  simple  word  of  His  Mother. 
Arguments  that  are  double-edged  had  better  be 
avoided,  for  they  are  apt  to  wound  the  hand  that 
wields  them.  The  Aaronic  Priesthood  stands  on  the 
same  footing  as  the  succession  of  the  Christian 
ministry,  except  tliat  its  evidence  is  incomparably 
weaker.  Like  Christianity  itself,  each  link  in  the 
chain  rests  on  the  simple  word  of  a  woman,  who,  in 


278  MORAL  EVIDENCE  ENOUGH. 

case  of  fraud,  had  the  strongest  motive  for  deception. 
The  validity  of  the  priesthood  in  the  Jewish  Church 
v^ras  based  on  legitimate  descent  from  Aaron,  of  which 
there  could  not  be  in  any  single  case  an  indisputable 
proof. 

The  truth  is,  we  must  in  all  such  cases  fall  back  on 
moral  evidence  and  on  God's  overruling  providence. 
He  is  not  tied  to  His  ordinances,  and  when  the 
"  ministers  and  stewards  of  His  mysteries "  have 
faithfully  done  their  part,  the  Founder  of  the  Church 
can  Himself  make  good  any  flaw  that  may  arise 
through  accident  or  ioTiorance.  But  in  order  to 
invalidate  the  evidence  it  is  not  enough  to  point  to 
the  possibility  of  "forged  documents*'  and  the  like; 
the  objector  must  make  out  a  case,  for  the  burden  of 
proof  rests  on  him.  Indeed,  the  usual  objections 
against  the  valid  succession  of  the  Christian  Ministry 
tell  with  much  more  effect,  as  I  have  already  pointed 
out,  against  the  devolution  of  property ;  nay,  more : 
they  would  shake  the  foundations  of  physical  science, 
which  in  some  of  its  ultimate  truths  reposes  on  faith 
rather  than  on  demonstration.  Where  is  the  evidence 
for  belief  in  an  external  world  ?  Scientifically  there 
is  none.  Destroy  man's  nerves  of  sensation — vision, 
liearing,  touch — and  all  evidence  vanishes.  Again,  it 
is  an  axiom  of  physical  science  that  the  quantity  of 


MORAL   EVIDENCE  AXD  SC/fW'CE.  279 

fru'Cf  in  tlio  universe  is  fixed  and  definite.  This  belief, 
says  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  is  the  basis  of  all  science, 
and  the  laws  of  Nature  are  corollaries  of  it.  Without 
it  no  scientific  conclusion  could  be  verified  ;  yet  it  is 
itsolf  incapable  of  verification.  Equally  so  is  the 
scientific  axiom  that  matter  exists  under  the  form  of 
the  co-existent  forces  of  attraction  and  repulsion. 
"  We  cannot,"  says  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  "  truly 
represent  one  ultimate  unit  of  matter  as  di-awing  one 
unit  of  matter  while  resisting:  it.  Nevertheless  the 
belief  is  one  we  are  compelled  to  entertain."  On  the 
other  hand,  the  possibility  of  a  break  in  the  succession 
of  the  Christian  Ministry  is,  by  the  doctrine  of  chances, 
so  small  as  almost  to  reach  the  vanishing  point.  A 
distinguished  living  writer  has  shown  that  it  is 
mathematically  equivalent  to  one  against  many 
billions.  Three  Bishops  are  required  to  take  part  in 
every  Episcopal  Consecration,  which  multiplies  indefi- 
nitely the  improbability  of  fraud  or  accident.  It 
is  so  extremely  improbable  that  three  consecrators 
should  all  lack  valid  consecration,  that  the  objector 
must  undertake  to  prove  it  in  particulars  before  he 
can  claim  a  hearing.  And  even  if  he  could  prove  it 
in  any  one  case,  the  defect  would  not  outlive  the 
bishops  ordained  by  the  three  spurious  consecrators. 
It  could  not  be  perpetuated. 


28o  NON-EPISCOPAL   COMMUNIONS. 

But  how  does  such  a  doctrine  affect  the  position  of 
non-Episcopal  Communions  ?  Let  me  say  at  once 
that  I  have  no  sort  of  sympathy  with  accusations 
of  "  schism "  and  "  hostility  to  the  Church "  made 
by  Churchmen  against  Nonconformists.  To  me  it 
seems  absurd  to  charge  the  sin  of  schism  against 
English  Nonconformists,  considering  their  history  in 
all  its  bearings.  As  a  Churchman  I  am  grateful  to 
them  for  having  done  so  much  for  Christianity  during 
periods  of  apathy  and  supineness  on  the  part  of  the 
Church  of  England.  And  the  more  of  the  privileges 
of  the  Church  of  England  they  are  allowed  to  share, 
so  long  as  no  essential  principle  is  sacrificed  on  either 
side,  the  more  do  I  rejoice.  Nor  do  I  feel  any  resent- 
ment against  Nonconformist  hostility  to  the  Church. 
The  existence  of  Nonconformity  implies,  of  course, 
antao^onism  to  the  Established  relio^ion,  and  Church- 
men  have  no  right  to  blame  Nonconformists  for  being 
consistent  and  loyal  to  their  own  principles.  The  Chris- 
tian who  does  not  believe  in  the  superiority  of  his  own 
communion  has  no  excuse  for  separation.  Our  Lord's 
dying  prayer  was  that  all  Christians  might  be  one, 
not  in  heart  and  spirit  merely,  but  in  outward 
appearance  as  well.  It  was  for  a  visible  unity  He 
prayed,  a  unity  which  should  appeal  to  the  world. 
"Neither  pray  I  for  these  [His  immediate  disciples] 


EPISCOPACY  AND  HISTORY.  28 1- 

alone,  but  i'or  tlu'in  also  which  shall  believe  on  Mo 
through  their  word  ;  that  they  all  may  be  one ;  as 
Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also 
may  be  one  in  Us :  that  the  world  may  believe  tliat 
Thou  hast  sent  Me."  It  is  therefore  an  imperative 
Christian  duty  to  allow  nothing  that  is  not  absolutely 
essential,  nothing  that  does  not  belong  to  the  original 
deposit  of  Christian  truth,  or  is  not  a  necessary 
corollary  from  it,  to  stand  in  the  way  of  Christian 
unity.  The  divisions  of  Christendom  are  doubtless 
the  greatest  of  all  hindrances  to  the  spread  of 
Christianity.  I  am  sure  that  Nonconformists  are 
tirmly  convinced  in  their  own  minds  that  their 
separation  from  the  Church  is  justified  by  the  claims 
of  truth.  And  so  long  as  they  hold  that  opinion  they 
are  bound  in  honesty  to  oppose  the  Church  and  strive 
to  bring  it  over  to  their  own  way  of  thinking. 

But  what  I  concede  to  the  Nonconformist  I  claim 
for  the  Churchman.  I  am  convinced  on  historical 
grounds  that  Episcopacy  is  the  original  form  of 
Church  government.  I  cannot  find  in  the  records 
of  primitive  Christianity  a  trace  of  non-episcopal 
Churchmanship.  At  the  first  (Ecumenical  Council, 
representing  the  Church  scattered  throughout  the 
world,  we  find  the  Church  under  the  government  of 
Bishops ;  and  although  some  questions  bearing  on  the 


282  NON- EPISCOPACY  AND  PAPALISM. 

constitution  of  the  Church  came  under  discussion, 
there  was  not  a  whisper  o£  complaint  that  a  revolution 
had  silently  taken  place — namely,  the  substitution  of 
Episcopacy  for  Presbyterianism  or  any  other  form  of 
ecclesiastical  polity.  Surely  that  is  a  conclusive  proof 
that  Episcopacy  was  down  to  that  time  the  universally 
recognized  form  of  the  Christian  Ministry.  The 
Council  of  Nicsea  had  evidently  never  heard  either  of 
Presbyterianism,  Congregationalism,  or  Papalism.^ 

'  A  most  remarkable  admission  lies  before  me  of  the  sheer 
impossibility  of  reconciling  Papalism  with  the  historical  evidence 
famished  by  the  CEcumenical  Councils  of  undivided  Christendom. 
The  admission  is  made  in  a  learned  volume,  Be  Hehrceoriim  et 
Christianorum  Sacra  Monarchia  et  de  Infallihili  in  Utraque  Magis- 
terio,  printed  at  Eoine  in  1875,  "ex  Typographia  Vaticana,"  and 
dedicated  to  Pius  the  Ninth.  The  author,  Aloisins  Vincenzi,  is  a 
Roman  Prelate  and  Professor  of  Hebrew.  This  learned  and  candid 
Professor,  after  surveying  the  history  of  the  first  five  centuries  of 
Christianity,  finds  the  canons  of  the  ancient  Conncils  absolutely 
irreconcilable  with  the  Papal  theory.  What  is  to  be  done?  The 
Papacy  cannot  be  surrendered,  for  that  is  with  Vincenzi  a  primary 
arcicle  of  faith.  The  only  alternative  is  to  throw  overboard  as 
forgeries  the  canons  of  the  early  Councils,  and  our  author  adopts 
that  alternative.    Here  is  the  conclusion  of  his  elaborate  argument : — 

*' Demum,  quidquid  putandam  sit  de  origine  et  auctoritate  praefa- 
torum  innumerorum  Canonun,  nullus  tamen  mihi  unquam  suadebit, 
Apostolos,  Patres  Nicaenos,  Constantinopolitanos,  Africancs,  Chalce- 
donenses,  et  quidem  orthodoxos,  quandoque  tales  sancivisse 
Canones;  in  quibus  Petri  et  successorum  imminuitur  et  deletur 
primatua  ;  ac  una  Pontificatus  Romani  expuguatur  jurisdictio  supra 
EcclesisB  Catholicae  episcopatum." 

But  what  is  to  be  said  of  St.  Paul's  withstanding  Peter  "  because 
he  was  to  be  blamed,"  and  of  the  co-ordinate  authority  given  to  St. 


LOYALTY    TO    TRUTH  TRUE   CHARITY.  2S3 

Surely  there  can  be  no  lack  of  charity  in  holding 
U^  what  one  believes  to  be  the  truth.  l'>ut  the  Church- 
man who  believes  that  he  possesses  a  larger  measure 
of  the  truth  than  those  who  have  separated  themselves 
from  the  oriiiinal  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church 
is  not  entitled  on  that  acount  to  look  down  upon  them 
or  to  consider  them  less  near  to  God  than  himself. 
On  the  contrary,  he  is  bound  to  believe  that  a 
Dissenter  who  is  morally  on  the  same  plane  as  himself 
is  relatively  and  in  the  sight  of  God  on  a  higher  level, 
l)ecause  his  privileges  are  fewer.  Our  Lord  warned 
the  self-righteous  Pharisees  of  His  day  that  many 
should  come  from  the  east  and  west  and  sit  down 
with  Abraham  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  while  the 
children  of  the  kingdom,  who  had  neglected  or  abused 
their  privileges,  would  be  cast  out.  So  now  the 
Nonconformist  wOio  makes  the  most  of  his  oppor- 
tunities and  walks  according  to  his  lights  is  a  better 
Christian  than  the  Churchman  w^ho  scornfully  looks 
down  upon  him  and  lives  a  meaner  life.  And, 
after   all,  we  must   not   forget   that  every  baptized 

Peter  and  St.  Taul  in  several  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles?  Hero  too 
Vinconzi'a  candour  is  admirable.  He  frankly  admits  that  the 
passages  in  question  cannot  be  harmonized  with  Papal  supremacy 
and  infallibility.  So  he  devotes  sixty-six  large  quarto  pages  to 
prove  that  it  was  not  Peter  the  Apostle  to  whom  reference  is  made, 
but  a  less-kuown  nan»esake.     See  pp.  201-2C8,  305  371. 


284  PERFECTION  NOT  PROMISED 

Christian,  whether  he  be  a  Nonconformist  or  not,  is  a 
member  of  the  Church.  The  Nonconformists  of  our 
day  have  inherited  their  position,  and  it  is  not  ours  to 
sit  in  judgment  upon  them.  We  are  bound  to  adhere 
to  what  we  believe  to  be  the  truth.  The  rest  we 
must  leave  to  Him  Who  "  judgeth  righteously."  Let 
us  remember  that  some  of  the  greatest  prophets  who 
illumined  the  history  of  the  Jewish  Church  belonged  to 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  with  its  schismatical  worship 
and  irregular  priesthood.  That  Churchman  must 
indeed  be  blind,  and  worse  than  blind,  who  fails  to 
recognize  the  illustrious  services  that  English  Noncon- 
formity and  Scotch  Presbyterianism  have  rendered  to 
the  cause  of  Christianity  both  at  home  and  abroad. 
It  is  a  duty  to  acknowledge  all  this  while  honestly 
contending  for  our  own  principles. 

One  of  the  stock  arguments  against  the  Church  of 
England  on  the  part  of  our  Roman  brethren  is  that 
she  does  not  claim  perfection ;  that  she  acknowledges 
the  existence  of  corruptions,  heterodoxies,  divisions, 
while  claiming  nevertheless  to  be  an  integral  portion 
of  the  Church  of  Christ.  This  admission  is  authori- 
tatively declared  to  be  fatal  to  the  claim,  since  the 
Catholic  Church  must  necessarily  be  incorrupt  and 
irreformable.  A  writer  in  the  Dublin  Review  of 
July,    1875,   propounds    this    view   in    an   elaborate 


TO   rilE   CIlURCIf  MILITANT.  285 

article.  Startini]^  from  an  assertion  by  Cardinal 
Mannin<^ — namely,  that  "  a  '  reformed  Church  is 
necessarily  a  human  one,*  which  neither  comes  from 
(J()(l  nor  leads  to  Him," — the  writer  proceeds  to 
draw  a  strict  analogy  between  the  history  of  the 
pliysical  universe  and  that  of  the  Church.  In  the 
former  he  finds  "no  crack  nor  flaw.  It  is  still  as 
perfect  as  when  it  came  from  the  Creator's  hand." 
Disorder  and  confusion  are  "absolutely  excluded. 
And  therefore  it  follows"  that  if  God  "had  made 
a  Church  liable  to  corruption  and  division,  as  An- 
i;licans  say,  He  would  have  contradicted  Himself, 
denied  His  own  nature,  and  cancelled  the  work  of 
Redemption.  He  would  have  shown  less  care  for 
His  elect  than  for  the  humblest  flower  which  blooms 
securely  in  the  cleft  of  the  rock,  or  the  meanest 
insect  which  finds  a  safe  home  in  a  leaf  shaken  by 
the  wind."  In  short,  absolute  perfection,  without 
"  crack  or  flaw,"  is  declared  to  mark  the  handiwork 
of  God  alike  in  the  realms  of  Nature  and  of  Grace. 
Such  is  the  astounding  thesis  which  is  sustained  in 
the  Icadinrr  organ  of  the  Roman  Church  in  the  country. 
Let  us  briefly  examine  it. 

Now,  of  course,  every  Christian  must  believe  that 
perfection  must  characterize  the  works  of  Him  Whose 
wisdom,  and   power,  and    love  are  all   infinite.     But 


286  ROMAN  DOCTRINE   TESTED 

what  do  we  mean  by  *  perfection '  ?  The  Dubiin 
Reviewer  means  that  everything  issues  from  the 
Creator's  hands  without  "  crack  or  flaw,"  and  there- 
fore incapable  for  evermore  of  reformation  or  im- 
provement. But  this  is  certainly  not  the  kind  of 
perfection  which  we  behold  either  in  the  history 
of  the  world  or  of  the  Church.  In  each  there  is 
perfection,  but  it  is  perfection  after  a  long  effort 
marked  by  the  scars  of  many  a  "  crack  and  flaw." 
This  planet  which  we  inhabit,  and  of  which  we 
know  most,  was  not  projected  into  space  by  the 
fiat  of  the  Almighty  in  the  condition  in  which  we 
now  see  it.  There  was  a  time  when  it  was  whirling- 
through  space  as  a  globe  of  fire,  unfit  for  any  known 
form  of  life.  And  what  is  its  history  since  it  became 
habitable  ?  Is  it  not  the  history  of  unceasing  pro- 
gress, strewn  all  round  with  the  wrecks  of  what  at 
the  time  must  have  seemed  fruitless  efforts  ?  We, 
who  look  back  upon  them,  may  see  that  the  efforts 
were  not  fruitless,  and  that  each  seeming  failure  had 
its  place  and  purpose  in  one  grand  design.  But  if 
we  fix  our  gaze  on  the  present  alone,  ignoring  alike 
the  lessons  of  the  past  and  the  premonitions  of  the 
future,  we  shall  find  ourselves  obliged  to  exclaim 
with  Dr.  Newman:  "I  look  into  this  living  busy 
world  and  see  no  reflection  of   its  Creator ; "  ^  or   to 

*  Apologia,  p.  377. 


^V  SCIEXCE  AXD   HISTORY.  2S7 

take  refuf^e  with  Mr.  Mill  in  the  conclusion,  that  tho 
anomalies  of  the  moral  and  physical  world  are  inex- 
plicable except  on  the  Manichean  hypothesis.  The 
perfection,  therefore,  of  which  we  have  experience  in 
the  moral  and  physical  world  is  a  development  from 
rude  beginnings,  through  "  cracks  and  Haws,"  to  a 
crowning  result.  This  is  what  we  behold  everywhere. 
The  flower  does  not  always  "  bloom  securely  in  the 
cleft  of  the  rock,"  nor  does  the  insect  invariably  "  find 
a  safe  home  in  a  leaf  shaken  by  the  wind."  The  flowers 
that  bloom  are  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  seeds 
which  perish,  and  the  frost  of  a  single  hour  may 
smite  the  smiling  blossom  with  premature  decay.  Yet 
neither  seed  nor  blossom  perishes  in  vain  ;  in  its  death 
as  in  its  life  each  fulfils  its  purpose  in  the  economy 
of  Nature.  Seeming  failure,  but  real  success :  this 
is  the  characteristic  of  God's  work  in  the  physical 
creation,  and  we  should  therefore  naturally  expect 
to  find  His  spiritual  creation  marked  by  the  same 
characteristic.  Nor  are  our  anticipations  belied  by 
facts.  Look  at  the  Jewish  Church.  The  Dublin 
Reviewer  will  hardly  deny  that  the  polity  prescribed 
to  Moses  in  the  Blount  of  God  was  a  divine  creation  ; 
and  he  knows  the  glowing  prophecies  of  which  the 
Jewish  Church  wjis  the  suliject.  Spotlessness,  unity, 
permanence,  indefectibility,  were  among  the  attributes 


288  SEEMING   FAILURE,   REAL  SUCCESS, 

ascribed  to  her  in  psalm  and  prophecy.  Yet  the  Jewish 
Church  was  defiled  by  idolatry,  rent  by  schism,  and 
carried  into  captivity ;  and  some  of  the  greatest  Pro- 
phets and  of  the  most  remarkable  miracles,  which 
illustrated  her  chequered  history,  belong  to  the  Ten 
Tribes  which  worshipped  the  golden  calves  of  Jero- 
boam. 

The  history  of  the  Christian  Church  offers  an 
exact  parallel.  Like  her  Jewish  prototype,  she  is 
the  heir  of  magnificent  promises ;  but  the  time  of 
fulfilment  is  not  yet.  Even  in  the  Apostolic  age, 
we  read  of  the  "  divisions "  and  "  heresies,"  which 
disturbed  her  peace  and  mingled  the  tares  of  error 
with  the  wheat  of  Divine  truth ;  and  we  have  it  on 
the  word  of  her  Founder  that  this  mingling  of  the 
wheat  and  tares  must  go  on  till  the  harvest.  Certainly 
it  has  been  so  hitherto,  though  short-sighted  men  and 
parties  have  from  time  to  time  made  vain  attempts  to 
uproot  the  tares,  and  in  so  doing  have  too  often  "rooted 
up  the  wheat  also." 

As  English  Church-people,  therefore,  we  need  not 
be  discouraged  by  any  shortcomings,  scandals,  ano- 
malies in  faith  or  morals  which  we  may  see  in  the 
Church.  Such  things  are  on  the  general  lines  of 
God's  providence  all  along  the  history  of  our  planet 
and  its   inhabitants.     They   should   stimulate   us   to 


THE  MARK   OF  GOiys    JIVKA'S.  2S9 

Cfroater  cftbrts  as  soldiers  of  Christ  and  citizens  ot 
I  lis  Kingdom;  l»ut  tliey  afford  no  presumption,  still 
lr>s  do  they  aft'ord  proof,  tliat  a  CMiurcli  in  wliich 
they  are  visible  is  a  mere  liuman  institution,  not 
a  Divine  creation.  The  presumption  is  entirely  the 
other  way. 


XII. 

"The  Life  of  the  World  to  co:^ie." 

life  eterxal  contrasted 

*'I  LOOK  for  the  Kesurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the 
life  of  the  world  to  come."  So  ends  the  Xicene 
Creed.  What  is  ''  the  life  of  the  world  to  come  "  ?  The 
Apostles'  Creed  calls  it  "the  life  everlasting."  Our 
Lord  always  speaks  of  it  as  "  life  eternal,"  which  is 
better  than  "everlasting."  The  idea  we  get  from  "ever- 
lasting" is  duration  without  end.  The  thouirht  of 
eternity  lifts  our  minds  altogether  out  of  the  sphere 
of  time.  Eternity  has  no  relation  to  time.  It  has  no 
succession  of  moments ;  no  future ;  therefore  no  un- 
certainty :  it  is  an  ever-enjoyable  present ;  the  life  of 
Almighty  God.  What  a  contrast  to  our  life  on  earth  ! 
That  is  brief  at  the  best.  The  youngest  and  strongest 
among  us  can  with  certainty  name  a  day  in  the  near 
future  and  say,  "  When  that  day  arrives  I  shall  not 
be  here.  The  sun  will  rise  and  set,  but  my  eyes  will 
not  behold  it.  Men  will  go  about  their  business  and 
pleasures,  but  I  shall  no  longer  be  among  them.    They 


Willi  LIFE   TEMrORAL.  z)\ 

will  asseiiiMr  in  tin'  House  of  CJod  i'oi-  pr.iyt  r  mikI 
adoration,  l>iit  my  voice  will  ii<>  nuu-c  iiiliii;i('  with 
theirs;  I  shall  then  ho  partaker,  I'or  ^ood  or  ill,  of  a 
life  that  is  endless." 

And  not  only  is  the  present  life  short  at  the  best;  it 
is  most  uncertain  while  it  lasts.  AVe  can  foretell  its 
end  within  a  given  period,  hut  not  the  precise  date  of 
its  ii\\y\.  It  hangs  on  a  thread  which  may  be  snapped 
any  moment.  The  only  thing  certain  about  it  is  that 
it  will  soon  cease.  And  not  only  so,  but  it  is  most 
imperfect  while  it  husts.  Were  its  duration  prolonged 
and  its  teiuire  secured  to  us,  it  would  still  be  un- 
satisfying. Our  iMjst  intentions  are  liable  to  be 
misiniderstood,  our  most  cherished  plans 'are  exposed 
to  failure,  our  deepest  desires  often  miss  their  aim. 
And,  to  erowii  all,  our  i-eal  self,  our  innuortal  perso- 
nality, is  imprisoned  in  a  material  organism  which 
fetters  its  inherent  powers,  and  is  subject  to  innu- 
merable calamities  and  incessant  decay.  So  that  a 
large  part  of  this  life  is  w^asted  in  w\arding  off  the 
various  ills  that  flesh  is  heir  to,  and  in  recruiting: 
mind  and  body  after  the  exhaustion  that  daily  ensues 
on  the  exercise  of  their  powers. 

How  diHerent  is  the  life  eternal !  It  has  no  end, 
and  is  mari-ed  by  no  uncertainty.  No  sclieme  can  there 
miscarry  for  lack  of  time  or  by  reasijn  of  untijward 


292  MORALITY  AND  DOGMA. 

circumstances.  And  there  is  no  waste  of  energy  or  ex- 
haustion from  the  exercise  of  faculties.  We  are  told 
indeed  that  those  who  shall  be  privileged  to  enjoy  the 
eternal  life  "  rest  from  their  labours."  Yes,  from  their 
labours.  But  we  also  read  that  "  they  rest  not  daj-  and 
night."  In  other  words,  work  will  no  longer  be  a  labour, 
but  a  delight.  There  will  be  unceasing  energy,  un- 
wearied activity  of  mind  and  body ;  new  pleasures  and 
wonders  opening  out  new  faculties,  which  will  ever  ex- 
pand from  constant  use  guided  by  Supreme  AVisdom. 

Such  is  the  life  for  vrhich  the  Nicene  Creed  bids 
us  look.  And  the  necessary  condition  of  enjoying 
it,  our  Lord  tells  us,  is  knowledge  of  the  true  God : 
"And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know 
Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  Whom 
Thou  hast  sent."  There  is  no  ambiguity  here.  If 
we  are  to  believe  our  Lord,  knowledge  of  Divine 
truth,  of  "  the  only  true  God  "  and  of  the  Incarnation, 
are  necessary  for  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  life.  This, 
I  fear,  is  not  the  popular  view.  What  does  it  matter, 
we  often  hear  it  asked,  what  a  man  believes  in  matters 
of  religion  if  he  lives  a  good  moral  life  ?  Pope  has 
given  terse  expression  to  that  opinion  in  tlie  well- 
known  lines : — 

"  For  foi'ms  of  government  let  fools  contest ; 
Whatc'er  is  best  administered  is  best. 
For  modes  of  faith  let  graceless  zealots  fight ; 
His  can't  be  wrong  whose  life  is  in  the  right." 


BE3T  FORM  OF   GOVERXMEXI.  293 

Tlu'  theology  ol'  tliis  vei'se  is  011  <i  })iir  \\\i\\  its 
p(jlitics.  The  form  (jf  o()VL'riuneiit  wliicli  is  "])est 
jKlininistered"  is  by  no  means  necessarily  "best."  The 
best  form  of  jxovernmcnt  is  that  Avliich  trains  its  sub- 
jects  to  govern  tliemselves,  and  which  thus  combines 
the  'tiuiximitm  of  individual  liberty  with  the  mini- 
'iWitni  of  governmental  control.  The  true  »nd  of 
government  is  the  good  of  the  governed,  and  the 
form  of  government  which  secures  this  is  undoubtedly 
the  best.  But  the  mere  machinery  of  government 
may  be  more  ellicienr  under  the  most  grinding  despo- 
tism than  under  the  most  constitutional  rule.  A 
government  which  is  under  popular  control  will  be 
jdower  in  its  action,  and  more  vacillating  in  its  policy  ; 
yet  in  the  long-run  its  policy  will  l)e  wiser  and  its 
administration  better  than  those  of  a  despotism  or  an 
oligarchy.  Salutary  reforms  in  policy  and  adminis- 
tratiim,  as  the  history  of  our  own  country  shows  (r.fj. 
the  reform  of  our  criminal  code),  come  from  behnv. 
This  is  not  because  the  rulers  and  the  educated  and 
well-to-do  classes  are  less  humain'  than  the  masses,  or 
more  inditi'erent  to  the  coimnon  weal,  but  because 
their  privileged  position  debars  them  from  a  practical 
knowledge  of  the  evils  to  l»e  remedied.^     How  nobly 

'  Aristotle's  womlerfuUy  pitxctical  mind  anticipated  in  this,  as 
in  so  many  other  matters,  one  of  the  fundamental  experiences  of 


294  CHARACTER  MOULDED  BY 

is  the  true  idea  of  government  expressed  in  the  Te 
Deum:  "Govern  them,  cmd  lift  them  wp  for  every 
That  is  the  Divine  method  of  o-overnment.  Kulers 
die,  governments  perish,  empires  pass  away  :  but  "the 
Lord  sitteth  above  the  waterfioods,  and  the  Lord 
remaineth  a  King  for  ever;"  never  wear}',  never 
baffled,  never  impatient,  for  He  can  afford  to  bide  His 
time,  since,  having  an  eternity  to  ^^'ork  in,  nothing  can 
escape  Him.  And  His  work  is  unceasingly  directed  to 
one  end — the  lifting  up  of  the  creature  towards  Him- 
self. Governments  fail  or  prosper  in  the  long-run  in 
the  degree  in  which  they  adopt  or  repudiate  His 
method. 

The  last  half  of  Pope's  verse  is  still  more  shallow  and 
sophistical,  for  it  begs  the  question  in  debate  by 
assuming  that  man's  life  can  be  "  in  the  right "  while 
his  creed  is  in  the  wrong.  But  can  it  ?  Does  not  the 
history  of  mankind  prove  the  contrary-  ?     L'^niversal 

popular  government.  I  may  refer,  inter  alia,  to  the  following 
passage  in  his  Politics  (Bk.  iii.  ch.  11)  : — "  The  opinion  that  the 
ninltitude  should  rule  (Kvpiov),  rather  than  the  choice  few  (rohs 
aplarovs  /xh'  oXiyovs),  is  not  free  from  a  certain  degree  of  difficulty; 
but  it  admits  of  explanation,  and  contains  an  element  of  truth.  For 
the  many,  though  none  of  them  excel  individually,  when  they  com- 
bine are  likely  to  be  better  than  the  few  best  viewed  in  the  lump. 
For  each  individual  among  the  many  has  a  share  of  virtue  and  prac- 
tical wisdom,  and  when  they  meet  together  the  multitude  aro  like 
one  man,  who  has  many  feet,  and  hands,  and  senses." 


THE   OBJECT  OF  HOMAGE.  295 

experience  sliows  that  man  l»ccoinos  of  necessity 
jissimilated  to  lli«'  ohji'ft  ot*  liis  li()mai]^(\  11'  that 
ohject  be  pure  and  noblo,  it  will  generate  a  pure  and 
noble  character  in  the  worshipper ;  it'  impure  and 
base,  the  character  moulded  by  it  will  also  be  impure 
and  base.  What  is  the  history  of  Paganism  but  r)ni^ 
long  and  melancholy  illustration  of  this  truth  ? — 

"  Gods  partial,  cliangcful,  ]i!issionatc,  unjust, 
Whoso  attributes  were  ra^c,  revenge,  or  lust." 

Such  is  Popij's  own  description  of  the  deities  of  heathen 
m^^thology,  and  it  is  a  proof  of  his  shallow  philosophy 
that  he  should  imagine  that  man's  life  could  possibly 
be  in  the  right  while  it  succumbed  to  the  demoralizing 
influences  of  such  "modes  of  faith"  as  these.  No 
fact  in  history  is  more  certain  than  that  the  character 
of  a  people  is  moulded  by  their  faith.  Look  at 
^lohamedanism.  It  is  the  religion  of  a  large  variet}^ 
of  races,  differing  from  each  other  in  climate,  language, 
history,  and  in  mental  and  bodil}^  characteristics.  - 
Yet  one  type  of  moi-al  character  pervades  them  all. 
They  are,  in  the  mass,  impure,  cruel,  arrogant,  corrupt, 
TUiprogrcssive — characteristics  which  are  all  found 
in  the  Being  whom  they  a<lorc  as  (Jod.  The  most 
prominent  attribute  in  the  God  of  Islam  is  stern, 
relentless,  fateful  power,  lie  lias  no  tenderness.  To 
predicate  fatherhood  of  him,  or  attrilmte  to  him  any 


ige  ISLAM  AN  EXAMPLE. 

other  of  the  affections  of  hviman  relationship,  is  rank 
blasphemy  according  to  the  Koran.  And  his  rule  is 
not  founded  on  righteousness,  but  on  favouritism. 
The  Koran  represents  Mohamed  as  a  special  favourite 
Avhom  Allah  humours  as  an  Oriental  despot  would 
be  likely  to  humour  a  favourite  Minister.  Does  the 
Prophet  wish  to  indulge  some  foul  lust  ?  or  gratify 
some  cruel  passion  ?  or  perpetrate  some  gross  treachery  ? 
In  each  case  he  receives  without  delay  a  divine  revela- 
tion to  sanction  the  sin,  and  thereb}^  transmute  it  into 
a  virtue.  And  these  sanctions  of  iniquity,  with  many 
others,  are  in  the  Sacred  Law  of  Islam,  and  must 
therefore  continue  to  shape  the  characters  of  all  for 
whom  the  Koran  is  the  rule  of  f aitli  and  practice. 

To  those  who  have  not  made  a  serious  study  of  the 
literature  of  Islam,  or  who  have  no  experimental 
knowledge  of  the  practical  working  of  the  system  in 
lands  where  it  rules  supreme,  this  will  seem  a  too 
severe  judgment.  I  say  "in  lands  where  it  rules 
supreme,"  because  some  worthy  persons  judge  Islam 
by  their  knowledge  of  it  where  it  does  not  rule 
supreme,  as  in  India.  Every  one  who  has  mastered 
the  literature  of  the  subject,  or  who  has  studied  the 
system  in  purely  ^lohamedan  countries,  agrees  with. 
.  my  estimate  of  it.^     One  or  two  authoritative  names 

'   I  have  given  ample  evidence  of  this  in  an  article  iu  the  Contem- 
'poravy  Review,  May,  1S83,  on  Islam  and  Civilization. 


PALGRAVIVS   TESTIMONY.  297 

may  suffice  as  specimens.  In  int<'llect,  scliolarship,  im- 
partiality, and  practical  knowledi^e  of  Mohanicdanisni 
in  all  parts  of  the  world,  no  more  authoritative  name 
<'an  he  quoted  than  the  late  Mr.  Gifibrd  Palgravc's, 
I  will,  therefore,  make  two  or  three  quotations  from 
liini.  "The  God  of  Islam,"  says  Mr.  Palgrave,  "is  'a 
Pantheism  of  Force,'  '  the  autocratic  will  of  the  onn 
ijJi-eat  Agent' — a  tyrant  whose  sole  rule  of  conduct  is 
'sic  volo,  sic  jubeo;  stat  pro  ratione  voluntas.'"  Mr. 
Palgrave  then  goes  on  to  quote  a  tradition  which,  he 
^ays,  expresses  the  genuine  belief  of  Muslims  : — 

"When  God — so  runs  the  tradition — I  had  better 
said  the  blasphemy — resolved  to  create  the  human 
race  He  took  into  His  hands  a  mass  of  earth,  the  same 
whence  all  mankind  were  to  be  formed,  and  in  which 
they,  after  a  manner,  pre-existed:  and,  having  then 
ilivided  the  clod  into  two  equal  portions,  He  threw 
the  one  half  into  hell,  saying,  'These  to  eternal  tin', 
and  I  care  not;'  and  projected  the  other  half  into 
lieaven,  adding,  'And  these  to  Paradise;  and  I  care 
not.'" 

I  think  we  shall  all  agree  in  Mr.  Palgrave's  criti- 
cism : — 

•'  Gonnnentary  w^ould  here  be  supertiuous.  But  in 
this  we  have  before  us  the  adequate  idea  of  predesti- 
nation, or,  to  give   it  a  truer  nauiv.',  pre-danniation, 


298  RARE  EXCEPTIONS 

held  and  taught  in  the  school  of  the  Koran.  Paradise 
and  hell  are  at  once  totally  independent  of  love  and 
hatred  on  the  part  of  the  Deity,  and  of  merits  and 
demerits,  of  good  or  evil  conduct,  on  the  part  of  the 
creature ;  and  in  the  corresponding  theory  rightly  so, 
since  the  very  actions  which  we  call  good  or  ill  deserv- 
ing, right  or  wrong,  wicked  or  virtuous,  are  in  their 
essence  all  one  and  of  one,  and  accordingly  merit 
neither  praise  nor  blame,  punishment  nor  recompense . 
except  and  simply  after  the  arbitrary  value  which  the 
all -regulating  will  of  the  Great  Despot  may  choose  to 
assign  or  impute  to  them.  In  a  word.  He  burns  one 
individual  through  all  eternity,  amid  red-hot  chains 
and  seas  of  molten  fire;  and  seats  another  in  the 
plenary  enjoyment  of  an  everlasting  brothel,  between 
forty  celestial  concubines;  just  and  equalty  for  His 
own  good  pleasure  and  because  He  wills  it."^ 

Thus  you  see  that  the  words  God,  paradise,  retri- 
bution, future  judgment,  *  equality  of  all  true  believers 
before  God,"  imply  in  the  creed  of  Islam  ideas  radi- 
cally different  from  those  conveyed  by  the  same  words 
in  Christianity  and  Judaism.  The  Allah  of  Islam 
is  an  immoral,  irresistible,  personal  Force;  and  inas- 
much as  the  worshipper  becomes  in  character  assimi- 

*  Narrative  of  a  Year's  Journey  through  Central  and  Eastern 
Arabia,  i.  365,  367. 


FROVE    THE  RULE.  299 

lilted  i(^  tlie  oltjcct  of  liis  worsliip,  it  Is  iif)  wonder  tlmt 
the  devotees  of  such  a  deity  liave  cxliibited  tlin>UL,diout 
tlieir  long  liistory  the  characteristics  which  tliey  adore 
— namely,  destructive  force  and  sensual  indulc^encc. 
And  this  malign  influence  <^i  tlu^  Islamic  conception 
of  deity  is,  of  course,  intensified  hy  the  character  of 
the  Muslim's  prophet  and  archetype  of  human  per- 
fection. 

Some  of  the  admirers  of  Islam  point  to  isolat(Ml 
passages  in  the  Koran  which  seem  to  inculcate  nohler 
views  than  those  which  I  have  attributed  to  the 
system.  I  refer  such  tr>  the  pertinent  answer  of  Mi*. 
Palgrave  : — 

"  My  readers  will  understand  that  in  the  plan  ahovo 
traced  of  the  Mohannnedan  theory  as  embodied  in  tlu.^ 
Koran,  T  have  only  intended  to  convey  the  leading 
idea,  to  pourtray  the  leading  lineaments,  to  analyze 
the  ultimate  and  essential  constituents,  without  taking 
into  account  healthier  and  unhomogeneous  admixtures 
and  anomalous  touches  of  better  grac(\  Such  un- 
doubtedly exist  in  the  Koran  itself,  and  others  an^ 
recorded  by  credible  tradition:  happy  inconsistencies 
where  the  Prophet  degenerated  upwards  into  a  man, 
and  the  Koran  forgot  itself  for  a  moment  to  become 
almost  reasonabh;  and  Inniian.  Ihit  these  are,  after 
all,  heteroclite  exceptions,  an<l  can  thus  only  be  ad- 


300  MORALITY  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

duced  ill  opposition  to  the  great  scheme  of  the  work 
and  its  writer,  when  one  feeble  line  shall  prove 
Shakespeare  no  poet,  or  one  devout  phrase  indict 
Voltaire  of  Christianity."  ^ 

There  arc  those,  however,  who  think  that  this 
intluonce  on  conduct  and  character  may  be  avoided 
by  the  expedient  of  having  no  distinct  faith  at  ail. 
Let  us  by  all  means,  they  say,  admire  the  moral  senti- 
ments of  the  Gospel  and  practise  its  moral  precepts  ; 
but  do  not  let  us  trouble  ourselves  about  its  doctrines. 
Vain  thought !  The  morality  of  Christianity  is  in- 
separable from  its  doctrines,  and  could  not  long 
survive  their  general  decay.  Doubtless  it  would 
survive  for  some  time.  The  atmosphere  of  Christen- 
dom has  been  for  centuries  so  charoed  with  Christian 

o 

*  Ihi^.^  369.  Also  by  the  same  author,  Uhjsses;  or.  Scenes  and 
Studies  in  Mamj  Lands,  p.  155.  See  also  Doughty's  Arabia  Deserta, 
i.  101,  149,  178,  212,  265,  303,  340,  502;  ii.  360,  361.  Mr. 
Doughty  spent  a  year  among  the  Arabs  of  the  Desert,  speaking  their 
language  and  living  their  life,  and  anything  more  repulsive  than  the 
picture  which  he  gives  of  their  impurity,  untruthfulness,  aud 
treachery,  it  is  impossible  to  imagine.  And  he  attributes  it  all  to 
their  religion.  "  '  The  vrorshipper  models  himself  on  what  he  wor- 
ships,' is  an  Arab  proverb,"  says  Mr.  Palgrave  in  his  book  on  Arabia 
(i.  369,  370),  "no  less  true  in  religion  than  in  love," ,  and  he 
adds  that  "history  confirms  the  axiom"  in  the  case  of  Moha- 
medanism.  See  also  Mr.  Thomson's  Travels  in  the  Atlas  and  Southern 
Morocco.  Mr.  Thomson's  testimony  (and  he  is  a  very  competent 
witness)  agrees  with  that  of  Mr.  Palgrave  and  Mr.  Doughty.  Islam 
has  ever  been  a  curse  to  every  land  that  it  has  conquered. 


DEPENDS  OX  ITS  DOC77CL\'KS.  301 

ideas  and  Christian  principles  that  no  one  can  i^^'t  rid 
of  the  influence  of  Christianity  by  simply  rejcetini,^ 
its  creed.  And,  therefore,  no  one  brought  up  in  a 
<  'hristian  land  can  say  how  he  would  conduct  himself 
if  he  could  rid  himself  of  the  contagion  of  Christianity. 
lUit  he  cannot  rid  himself  c)f  it.  Xor  can  even  a 
whole  nation  do  so  at  once  by  a  universal  apostasy — ■ 
J  mean  a  nation  that  has  been  Christian  for  centuries, 
riie  modification  of  character  inherited  from  genera- 
tions of  Christian  ancestors,  teachers,  and  legislators 
cannot  bo  undone  by  an  act  of  arbitrary  choice.  An 
iMiglishman  is  said  to  carry  with  him  to  Northern 
Ivussia  an  amount  of  animal  heat  which  it  takes  thrco 
years  to  reduce  to  the  normal  temperature  of  tho 
natives.  In  the  same  wa}-,  the  Christian  morals  of  a 
people  would  be  sure  to  survive  for  some  time  thi^ 
ruin  of  their  faith.  But  they  would  not  sur\'ive  \ery 
long.  And  the  reason  is  plain.  Moral  character  is 
rooted  in  the  affections  rather  than  in  the  intellect, 
and  the  affections  will  cling  to  some  ol))ect.  'I'h<y 
cannot  live  in  a  vacuum.  And  as  tlicy  will  inrvitably 
be  influenced  and  moulded  by  the  object  to  which  they 
attach  themselves,  the  nature  and  character  of  that 
object  become  a  matter  of  vital  importance.  But  an 
in([uiry  into  the  nature  and  character  of  the  ol»ject  of 
worship  implies  theology.     Thus  we  see  how    idle  is 


302  CHRISTIANS  AXD  MUSLIMS 

the  attempt  to  divorce  morality  from  dogma.  Morality 
separated  from  dogma  will  gradually,  but  as  certainl3^ 
expire  as  a  piece  of  coal  taken  out  of  the  fire  and  left 
alone  with  its  borrowed  heat.  Let  me  cite  an  unsus- 
pected witness  in  support  of  that  conclusion.  In  a 
.speech  delivered  in  the  French  Academy  seven  years 
ago,  on  the  occasion  of  the  admission  of  M.  Cherbuliez, 
M.  Renan  described  the  gradual  conversion  of  the  new 
Academician's  father  from  faith  to  scepticism  ;  and 
then  went  on  to  explain  how  much  the  son  still 
benefited  by  the  faith  in  which  the  father  had  once 
believed  : — 

"  It  is  often  to  these  formulas  "  (says  Renan  pen- 
sively) "  that  we  unwittingly  owe  the  remains  of  all 
virtue  which  we  possesss.  In  our  generation  we  live 
on  a  shadow,  on  the  perfume  of  a  vase  which  once 
was  full  and  now  is  empty.  After  us  men  will  have 
to  live  on  the  shadow  of  a  shadow ;  and  I  often  fear 
on  somethino^  lio-hter  still." 

In  brief,  then,  we  may  say  that  bad  Christians  and 
good  Mohamedans  are  disloyal  to  their  respective 
creeds.  In  each  case  the  religion  moulds  the  cha- 
racters of  its  adherents.  The  eternal  life  on  which 
the  Muslim's  imao-ination  is  fed  and  his  character 
moulded  is  an  endless  round  of  indolent  self-indul- 
gence.    The  eternal  life  promised  by  Christ  to  His 


MOULDED   BY  Til  KIR   CREEDS.  303 

followers  is  one  of  total  uiiseltislmess  and  nnwoaiy- 
inf^  activity.  And  the  Founder  of  each  relif^ion 
practised  wh.'it  lie  preached.  The  ^lohanicdan  d(^- 
_L,^enerates  morally  and  intellectually  the  more  closely 
Ji(^  imitates  tlic  character  of  his  Prophet,  as  Mecca 
abundantly  proves.  The  Christian,  <jn  the  other  hand, 
is  elevated  in  every  faculty  of  his  natures  in  the  degree 
in  which  he  imitates  his  Master's  character  as  unfolded 
in  the  Gospel  nari'ative.  We  liave  thus  two  radically 
opposed  types  of  character  generated  by  dillerent 
"  modes  of  faith."  80  much  for  the  shallow  sophistry 
which  would  persuade  us  that  a  man's  creed  has  no 
bearing  on  his  conduct  and  character  ;  that  his  "life" 
can  be  "  in  the  ri^^ht "  though  his  creed  be  wron<j. 
*' This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  Thee  the 
only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  Whom  Thou  hast 
sent."  In  these  few^  words  wc  have  the  rationale  of 
the  Christian  creed.  Practical  knowledge  of  the  true 
God,  as  revealed  in  His  Son,  has  the  most  vital  bearing 
on  human  conduct,  and  consequent!}'  «)n  man's  eternal 
life. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  useful  to  offer  some 
observations  on  one  of  the  creeds  of  the  Church, 
which  is,  I  think,  greatly  misunderstood  ;  I  mean  tho 
Athanasian  Creed. 

Jn  the  first  place,  then,  let  us  remember   that  tho 


304  ATHANASIAN  CREED 

Atlianasian  Creed  is  intended  for  Christians  only.  Xo 
others  are  affected  by  it  in  any  wa}'.  It  is  an  ex- 
position,  in  somewhat  technical  language,  of  the 
Christian  Faith  as  it  affects  Christians,  and  none  but 
Christians.  Just  as  Proclamations  to  the  citizens  of 
Great  Britain  are  not  intended  for  foreigners,  though 
resident  amongst  us,  so  the  Atlianasian  Creed  is  not 
addressed  to  any  who  are  not  Christians.  It  passes 
no  judgment  and  expresses  no  opinion  on  the  future 
condition  of  the  professors  of  other  religions. 

In  the  next  place,  the  Athanasian  Creed  does  not 
say  that  even  Christians  who  do  not  hold  the  Catholic 
Faith  cannot  be  saved.  This  is  evident  from  the 
Latin  form  of  the  Creed,  which  is  the  authoritative^ 
form.  The  correct  translation  of  the  Latin  words  is : 
"  Whosoever  wishes  to  be  safe,  before  all  thinsfs  it  is' 
is  necessary  that  he  hold  the  Catholic  Faith."  God 
has  revealed  one  certain  way  of  salvation  on  wdiich, 
if  a  man  walk,  he  must  be  safe,  and  cannot  fail  to 
reach  his  home.  Many  will  doubtless  reach  home  l>y 
other  w^ays.  God  made  a  special  revelation  to  the 
Jews  of  old  ;  yet  our  Lord  told  them  that  many  would 
come  from  beyond  the  frontiers  of  Israel  and  sit  down 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  with  the  Father  of  the 
Faithful,  wdiile  many  of  "  the  children  of  the  king- 
dom "  should  be  '"  cast  out."     The  Jew  was  safe  while 


EXPLAINED  AND  ILLUSTRATED.  3^5 

ho  walked  alonjr  the  road  \vlii(li  li;id  heen  revealed  to 
him  and  iiioul^lcd  himself  on  the  character  of  the 
(lod  Whom  he  worshipped.  The  heathen  were  not 
safe ;  they  w^ere  in  danger  of  moral  ruin  from  the 
contaminating  influences  of  the  gods  whom  they 
adored.  So  now  the  Christian  who  fashions  his 
character  on  that  of  God,  as  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ, 
is  safe  whatever  his  condition  on  earth  may  chance  to 
be.  But  he  cannot  thus  fashion  his  character  unless 
he  has  a  true  conception  of  Almighty  God  as  revealed 
in  the  Incarnation. 

I  am  tempted  to  quote,  in  illustration  of  this  fact, 
the  following  striking  passage  from  Mr.  Hutton's 
powerful  essay  on  Tlie  Incarnation  and  Principles 
of  Evidence: — "If  Christ  is  the  Eternal  Son  of  God, 
God  is  indeed  and  in  essence  a  Father ;  the  social 
nature,  the  spring  of  love,  is  of  the  very  essence  of 
the  Eternal  being ;  the  communication  of  His  life, 
the  reciprocation  of  His  affection,  dates  from  beyond 
time — belongs,  in  other  words,  to  the  very  being  of 
God.  Now  some  persons  think  that  such  a  certainty, 
even  when  attained,  has  very  little  to  do  with  human 
life.  *  What  does  it  matter,'  they  say,  '  what  the 
absolute  nature  of  God  is,  if  we  know  what  He  is  fo 
ii,s;  how  can  it  concern  us  to  know  what  He  was 
before  our  race  existed,  if  we  know  what  He  is  to 

X 


3o6  /^.   H.   HUTTON  ON  THE  INFLUENCE. 

all  His  creatures  now  ? '  These  questions  seem 
plausible,  but  I  believe  they  point  to  a  very  deep 
error.  I  can  answer  for  myself  that  the  Unitarian 
conviction  that  God  is — as  God  and  in  His  eternal 
essence — a  single  and,  so  to  say,  solitary  personality, 
influenced  my  imagination  and  the  whole  colour  of 
my  faith  most  profoundly.  Such  a  conviction, 
thoroughly  realized,  renders  it  impossible  to  identify 
any  of  the  social  attributes  with  His  real  essence — 
renders  it  difficult  not  to  regard  power  as  the  true 
root  of  all  other  Divine  life.  If  we  are  to  believe 
that  the  Father  was  from  all  time,  we  must  believe 
that  He  was  as  a  Father — that  is,  that  love  was 
actual  in  Him  as  well  as  potential ;  that  the  com- 
munication of  life  and  thought  and  fulness  of  joy 
was  of  the  inmost  nature  of  God,  and  never  began 
to  be  if  God  never  began  to  be. 

"  For  my  own  part,  I  am  sure  that  our  belief,  what- 
ever it  may  be,  about  the  '  absolute '  nature  of  God, 
influences  far  more  than  any  one  supposes  our 
practical  thoughts  about  the  actual  relation  of  God 
to  us.  Unitarians  eagerly  deny,  I  once  eagerly 
denied,  that  God  is  to  them  a  solitary  Omnipotence. 
Nor  is  He.  But  I  am  sure  that  the  conception  of  a 
single  eternal  will  as  originating,  and  infinitely 
antecedent  to,  all  acts  of  love  or  spiritual  communion 


OF  CREED   ON  CHARACTER,  307 

^vitll  any  otlier,  affects  vitally  the  temper  of  faith. 
I'he  throne  of  heaven  is  to  them  a  lonely  one.  The 
solitude  of  the  eternities  weighs  upon  their  imagina- 
tions. Social  are  necessarily  postponed  to  individual 
attributes ;  for  they  date  from  a  later  origin — from 
creation, — while  power  and  thought  are  eternal. 
Necessarily,  therefore,  God,  though  spoken  of  and 
worshipped  as  a  Father  to  us,  is  conceived  j^'t'i^narily 
as  imagining  and  creating  ;  secondarily  only,  as  loving 
and  inspiring.  But  any  Being  whose  thoughts  and 
resolves  are  conceived  as  in  any  sense  deeper  and 
more  personal  than  His  affections,  is  necessarily 
regarded  rather  as  benignant  and  compassionate  than 
as  affording  the  type  of  that  deepest  kind  of  love 
which  is  co-ordinate  with  life ;  in  short,  rather  as  a 
beneficence  whose  love  springs  out  of  power  and 
reason,  than  as  One  whose  power  and  reason  are 
grounded  in  love.  I  am  sure  that  this  notion  of  God 
as  the  Absolute  Cause  does  tincture  deeply  even  the 
highest  form  of  Unitarian  faith,  and  I  cannot  see  how 
it  could  be  otherwise.  If  our  prayers  arc  addressed 
to  One  whose  eternity  we  habitually  image  as  un- 
shared, we  necessarily  for  the  time  image  the  Father 
the  Omniscient  and  Omnipotent  Genius  of  the  uni- 
\erse.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  pray  to  One 
who    has    revealed    His    own    eternity    throu^li    the 


3o8  IV//V  ''BEFORE  ALL    THINGS'' f 

Eternal  Son ;  if,  in  the  spirit  of  the  liturgies,  Catholic 
and  Protestant,  we  alternate  our  prayers  to  the 
eternal  originating  love,  and  to  that  filial  love  in 
which  it  has  been  eternally  mirrored,  turning  from 
the  '  Father  of  heaven  '  to  the  *  Son,  Redeemer  of  the 
world,'  and  back  again  to  Him  in  whom  that  Son 
for  ever  rests — then  we  keep  a  God  essentially  Social 
before  our  hearts  and  minds,  and  fill  our  imaofination 
with  no  solitary  grandeur."  ^ 

Is  there  not  good  reason,  therefore,  for  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  that  "  whosoever  wishes 
to  be  safe,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary  that  he 
hold  the  Catholic  Faith  "  ?  But  why  before  all  things  ? 
Would  it  not  be  more  reasonable  to  say  that  before 
all  things  it  is  necessary  that  a  man  should  live  a 
good  moral  life  ?  I  think  I  have  already  answered 
that  question  by  showing  that  man's  conduct  is 
influenced  by  his  belief ;  that  as  his  faith  is,  so  is  his 
character;  that  his  nature  feeds  upon  and  becomes 
assimilated  to  that  of  the  deity  whom  he  adores.  It 
is  not  easy  to  realize  this  in  a  Christian  land,  the 
very  atmosphere  of  which  is  charged  with  Christian 
influences,  so  that  men  who  disown  the  Christian 
Faith  are  nevertheless  leavened  by  it  unconsciously, 
and  think  and  act  differently  from  what  they  would 

^  Essays,  Theological  and  Literary,  ii.  246-248. 


''SHALL   PERISH  EVEKLASTINGLY."  309 

otlurwisc  have  done.  ^lan  cannot  do  without  religion 
of  some  sort,  and  considering  tlie  inlluence  of  religion 
on  conduct,  it  is  of  primary  importance  that  a  man 
sliould  start  with  a  true  religious  belief.  Hence  the 
declaration  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  that  "  before  all 
things  it  is  necessary  that  whosoever  wishes  to  be 
safe  should  hold  the  Catholic  Faith." 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  the  next  verse  ?  "  Which 
Faith  except  every  one  do  keep  whole  and  undefiled, 
without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly."  "  Perish 
everlastingly  : "  what  does  that  mean  ?  In  a  general 
way,  any  life  whatever  may  be  said  to  "  perish  ever- 
lastingly "  which  comes  everlastingly  short  of  the  end 
of  its  existence.  Every  form  of  created  life  enfolds  in 
its  rudimentary  germ  an  ideal  towards  which  it  should 
consciously  or  unconsciously  aspire.  The  ideal  of  a 
corn-seed  is  to  reproduce  itself  in  stalk  and  grain 
l>y  the  law  of  self-sacrifice;  therein  lies  its  perfection. 
But  if  it  remain  unfruitful  it  may  be  said  to  perish 
everlastingly,  because  it  has  missed  the  end  of  its 
existence.  The  perfection  of  a  tree  lies  in  its  reaching 
the  height  and  girth  and  stately  shape  of  which  it  is 
potentially  capable.  I  know  a  forest  by  the  sea 
where  all  the  trees  are  dwarfed  and  misshapen.  They 
had  been  exposed  during  their  period  of  growth  to 
the  withering  winds  of   an  eastern  ocean,  and  were 


3IO  MEANING   OF  THE  PHRASE 

thus  arrested  and  perverted  in  their  development. 
They  had  passed  their  period  of  probation  and  taken 
their  final  shape,  and  no  power  could  henceforth 
change  their  condition.  The  lightning  might  blast, 
the  tempest  might  break  or  root  them  up;  but  no 
force  of  man  or  nature  could  ever  mend  them.  They 
had  "  perished  everlastingly." 

Have  we  not  here  a  parable  of  human  life  ?  Man's 
character  has,  like  a  tree,  its  period  of  growth,  and 
tends  to  a  state  of  unchanging  fixity.  It  is  as  true  of 
him  as  of  the  trees  of  the  forest  that  the  influences 
of  a  comparatively  short  period  may  determine  the 
condition  of  a  period  indefinitely  long.  Exposure  to 
a  demoralizing  set  of  influences  for  a  given  time  may 
fix  the  character  so  irrevocably  in  a  wrong  groove 
that  it  is,  in  the  language  of  Holy  Scripture,  "  im- 
possible to  renew  it  again  unto  repentance."  On  the 
other  hand,  perseverance  in  the  right  way  will,  in 
due  course,  so  bias  the  will  Godward  that  it  can 
no  longer  yield  to  the  influence  of  evil.  This  self- 
determined  choice  of  good  is  in  truth  the  highest 
form  of  freedom.  True  moral  liberty  is  the  habitual 
free  choice  of  what  is  right ;  and  for  a  moral  being 
everlasting  perdition  means  such  an  incorrigible 
paralysis  of  the  will  and  perversion  of  the  aflections 
as  shall  make  recovery  hopeless.      Even  the  Pagan 


*'.4    GREAT  GULF  FIXE  DP  311 

Aristotle,  committed  to  no  theory  of  eschatology,  was 
forced  by  liis  profound  analysis  of  human  nature  to 
tlie  conchision  that  habitual  wrong-doing  must  result 
in  a  cliaracter  of  "  incorrigible  "  depravity.^    And  have 
we  not  licre  an  explanation  of  the  "great  gulf  fixed  " 
between  Dives  and  Lazarus,  whicli   those  on   either 
side  could  not  pass  ?     It  was  a  moral  gulf.     Lazarus 
could  not  alleviate  the  misery  of  the  wretched  volup- 
tuary  who   had   by   self-indulgence    destroyed    his 
capacity  for  enjoying  the  "good  things"  which  were 
now  the  heritage  of  the  whilom  beggar.    How  terribly 
significant  is  Abraham's  answer  to  the  piteous  appeal  ! 
"  Son,  remember  that  thou  in  thy  lifetime  receivedst  ^A// 
good  things,  and  likewise  Lazarus  evil  things ;  but  now 
he  is  comforted,  and  thou  art  tormented."    "  Receivest 
thy  good  things."     The  "purple  and  fine  linen  "and 
sumptuous   fare  were  the  only  things  which  Dives 
had  recognized  as  good.    He  had  made  the  pleasures  of 
the  senses  his  all-in-all;  had  woven  them  into  the  woof 
and  texture  of  his  character,  so  that  they  had  become 
part  of  him  ;  they  were  his  good  things.     In  other 
words,  he  had  by  his  selfishness  destroyed  his  taste 
for  heavenly  things,  and  had  created  appetites  whicli 
could  no  longer  be  gratified,  a  thirst  whiih  could  not 
be   quenched.      Lazarus  could   do   nothing   for  him  : 
•  E</iic.s,  bk.  ii.  c.  11,  §  7- 


312  *'  THAT  HE  MIGHT  GO 

could  offer  him  no  relief,  for  there  was  no  anodyne  in 
Paradise  to  appease  the  torture  of  sensual  appetites 
clamouring  for  food  which  was  no  longer  attainable. 
There  was  "  a  great  gulf  fixed "  which  could  not  be 
passed ;  but  it  was  fixed  and  made  impassable  by  the 
Rich  Man  himself,  through  the  ruin  of  a  constitution 
which  could  no  longer  enjoy  the  good  things  of 
eternity.  The  Beggar's  misery  on  earth  is  not  called 
his  "  evil  things,"  but  simply  "  evil  things."  It  was 
no  part  of  himself ;  it  was  only  a  character  assigned  to 
him  on  the  stage  of  this  world's  theatre,  and  which  he 
left  behind  him  when  he  passed  behind  the  scenes. 
Judas  Iscariot  fell,  we  are  told,  "  that  he  might  go  to 
his  own  place ; "  ^  that  is  to  say,  he  was  drawn,  like 
Dives,  by  the  force  of  an  irresistible  attraction  to  the 
sphere  of  being  to  which  he  had  adapted  his  nature. 
"  The  happiness  which  good  men  shall  partake  is  not 
distinct  from  their  Godlike  nature.  Happiness  and 
holiness  are  but  two  several  notions  of  one  thing. 
Hell  is  rather  a  nature  than  a  place,  and  heaven  can- 
not be  so  well  defined  by  anything  without  as  by 
something  witliin  us."  ^     Channing  has  drawn  a  vivid 

'   Acts  i.  25. 

-  0)1  the  Happiness  and  Holiness  of  True  Religion,  in  John  Smith's 
(the  Cambridge  Platonist's)  Select  Discoi^rses.  I  quote  from  the 
edition  of  1637,  which  is  the  best. 


TO  HIS  OWN  PLACE''  S'S 

])icturc   of  tl\o   way   in   wliieli   eacli   of   us  may  thus 
create  our  own  several  liells. 

"  In  the  present  state,"  ^  he  says,  "  we  find  that  the 
mind  has  an  immense  power  over  the  body,  and,  wlien 
diseased,  often  communicates  disease  to  its  sympa- 
tliizing  companion.  I  believe  that  in  the  future  state 
the  mind  will  have  this  power  of  conforming  its 
outward  frame  to  itself  incomparably  more  than  here. 
We  must  never  forget  that,  in  that  world,  mind  or 
character  is  to  exert  an  all-powerful  sway ;  and 
accordingly  it  is  rational  to  believe  that  the  corrupt 
and  deformed  mind  which  wants  moral  goodness,  or 
a  spirit  of  concord  with  God  and  with  the  Universe, 
will  create  for  itself  as  its  fit  dwelling  a  deformed 
body,  wliicli  will  also  want  concord  or  harmony  with 
all  things  around  it.  Suppose  this  to  exist,  and 
the  wdiole  creation  which  now  amuses  may  be- 
come an  instrument  of  suffering,  fixing  the  soul 
with  a  more  harrowing  consciousness  on  itself. 
You  know  that  even  now,  in  consequence  of  certain 
derangements  of  the  nervous  system,  the  beautiful 
light  gives  acute  pain,  and  sounds  which  once 
delighted  us  become  shrill  and  distressing.  How 
often  this  excessive  irritableness  of  the  body  has  its 
origin  in  moral  disorders  perhaps  few  of  us  suspect. 

*  Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  1G1-1G6. 


314  ''TO  EVERY  SEED 

I  apprehend,  indeed,  that  we  should  be  all  amazed 
were  we  to  learn  to  what  extent  the  body  is  con- 
tinually incapacitated  for  enjoyment,  and  made  sus- 
ceptible of  suffering,  by  the  sins  of  the  heart  and  life. 
That  delicate  part  of  our  organization,  on  which 
sensibility  pain  and  pleasure  depend,  is,  I  believe, 
peculiarly  alive  to  the  touch  of  moral  evil.  How 
easily,  then,  may  the  mind  hereafter  frame  the 
future  body  according  to  itself,  so  that,  in  proportion 
to  its  vice,  it  will  receive  through  its  organs  and 
senses  impressions  of  gloom  which  it  will  feel  to  be 
the  natural  productions  of  its  own  depravity,  and 
which  will  in  this  way  give  a  terrible  energy  to 
conscience  !  For  myself,  I  see  no  need  of  a  local  hell 
for  the  sinner  after  death.  When  I  reflect  how,  in 
the  present  world,  a  guilty  mind  has  power  to  deform 
the  countenance,  to  undermine  health,  to  poison 
pleasure,  to  darken  the  fairest  scenes  of  nature,  to 
turn  prosperity  into  a  curse,  I  can  easily  understand 
how,  in  the  world  to  come,  sin,  working  without 
obstruction  according  to  its  own  nature,  should  spread 
the  gloom  of  a  dungeon  over  the  whole  creation, 
wherever  it  goes,  should  turn  the  universe  into 
a  hell." 

This  is  a  terrible  commentary  on  St.  Paul's  Resur- 
rection  doctrine :    "  To   every   seed    his   own   body." 


Ills  OJKV  BODY."  3»S 

Every  seed   lias  its  own    specific  life,  which   builds 
around    it    an    outward    organization    suited    to   its 
peculiar  character.     The  human  frame  is  made  up  of 
material  particles  identical  in  kind  with  those  which 
compose  the  bodies  of  the  brutes  that  perish,  and  the 
difference  of  orcranization  is  in  virtue  of  the  different 
vital   principles  wdiich   energize  from  within.      Man 
was  created  in  the  image  of  his  God ;  but  if  he  sub- 
ordinates  the   spiritual   to   the   animal   part   of    his 
nature,  does  it  not  stand  to  reason  that  the  develop- 
ment of  his  character  will  be  in  a  brutish  direction, 
and  that  the  image  of  Christ  will  be  changed  into 
that  of  the  sin  to  which  he  clung  during  the  period 
of  his  probation,  and  wdiich  now  clings  to  him  like 
the  poisoned  shirt  of  Nessus  ?    Death  does  not  break 
the  continuity  of  human  life;    it  merely  disengages 
the  man's  true  self  from  the  restraints  and  environ- 
ments of  this  world,  and  reveals  him  just  as  he  is — 
transformed  into  the  image  of  his  Saviour  or  into  that 
of  the  Fiend.    Thus  viewed  old  age  is  very  instructive. 
As   the   bodily  functions   decay  and  the  intellectual 
powers  become  relaxed,  the  genuine  character  of  the 
man  begins  to  show  itself,  and  w^e  behold  either  the 
moroseness  and  peevishness  of  matured  selfishness,  no 
longer  kept  in  check  by  the  artificial  restraints  of  a 
calculating  prudence  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  the  glory 


3i6  THE  FINAL   CRISIS, 

of  the  immortal  life  reflected  on  silver  hairs,  and 
lighting  up  the  countenance  with  a  serene  beauty 
and  a  benign  cheerfulness  which  are  not  of  this 
earth. 

This  is,  in  fact,  the  true  import  of  the  Greek  word 
(KpicTig)  which  is  sometimes  translated  "judgment,' 
and  sometimes  "  damnation,"  in  our  Eno^lish  Version. 
It  really  means  a  separation  or  division,  and  would 
not  be  inappropriately  translated  by  its  English 
equivalent,  crisis.  What  do  we  mean  by  a  crisis  ? 
Do  we  not  mean  the  arrival  of  antagonistic  elements 
at  such  a  pass  that  a  separation  is  imminent,  and  one 
or  other  must  triumph  ?  A  fever  has  reached  its 
crisis  when  the  principle  of  life  and  the  principle  of 
decay  are  face  to  face  and  one  of  them  is  about  to 
obtain  the  mastery.  A  debate  in  Parliament  has 
reached  its  crisis  when  the  division  takes  place,  and 
the  members  file  off  to  the  right  hand  and  to  the  left 
of  the  presiding  judge,  each  following  out  to  their 
legitimate  results  the  principles  which  have  ruled  his 
political  conduct.  And  what  is  the  "judgment" 
(Kpi(ng)  of  the  Last  Day  but  the  crisis  of  humanity, 
the  final  separation  of  the  antagonistic  elements  of 
moral  good  and  moral  evil  ? 

But  many  persons,  who  have  no  difficulty  in  allow- 
ing that  moral  depravity  may  have  these  terrible  con- 


ARIAy  AXD  ARIVS  DIFFERENT.  317 

sequences,  are  apt  to  rebel  against  the  notion  of  de- 
pravity in  matters  of  faith  having  similar  consequences. 
They  can  understand  that  an  habitual  offender  against 
the  moral  law  may  "  perish  everlastingly,"  but  not  an 
habitual  offender  against  revealed  truth.  Does  the 
Athanasian  Creed  really  mean  that  a  heretic  shall 
perish  everlastingly  ?  Undoubtedly.  But  we  must 
distinguish.  In  the  first  place,  to  say  that  a  heretic 
shall  perish  everlastingly  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  saying  that  any  particular  heretic  shall  perish 
everlastingly.  In  the  one  case  perdition  is  predicated 
of  a  character,  in  another  of  a  person.  If  I  say  that 
an  Arian  shall  perish  everlastingly,  I  pass  judgment 
in  the  abstract  on  a  particular  form  of  theological 
belief.  If  I  say  that  Arius  has  perished  everlastingly, 
I  pass  judgment  on  an  individual ;  which  is  quite  a 
different  matter.  Does  this  seem  to  any  one  a  distinc- 
tion without  a  difference  ?  Let  us  test  it.  "  Whosoever 
hateth  his  brother  without  a  cause,"  says  "  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved,"  "  is  a  murderer :  and  ye  know  that 
no  murderer  hath  eternal  life  abiding  in  him."  ^  Again  : 
"  The  fearful "  {i.e.  moral  cowards),  "  and  unbelieving, 
and  the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and  whoremongers, 
and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  shall  have 
thoir  part  in   tho  lake  which  liurneth  with  fire  and 

*   1  John  iii.  15. 


3i8  TEST  OF  MORAL   CONDITION. 

brimstone  :  which  is  the  second  death."  "  Without  " 
(the  heavenly  city)  "  are  dogs,  and  sorcerers,  and 
whoremongers,  and  murderers,  and  idolaters,  and 
whosoever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie."  ^ 

Passages  of  similar  import  might  be  quoted  from 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  Are  we  to  understand  that 
no  individual  murderer,  or  liar,  or  idolater,  and  so 
forth,  can  be  saved  ?  No  one  would  say  so.  It  is 
the  murderer,  or  liar,  or  idolater  as  such,  who  is 
excluded  from  heaven,  not  the  particular  offender, 
who  may  have  repented  and  made  himself  fit  for 
heaven.  Man  is  a  complex  being,  and  we  can  never 
be  sure  that  any  specific  offence  against  faith  or 
morals  is  a  true  index  to  his  character  as  a  whole. 
It  is  the  key  in  which  the  thoughts  habitually  move 
that  determines  the  condition  of  man  as  a  responsible 
moral  agent,  and  God  alone.  Who  sees  the  heart,  can 
know  for  certain  what  that  key  is.  So  much  of  error 
in  faith  and  morals  comes  from  a  man's  environment, 
his  hereditary  tendencies,  invincible  prejudices  arising 
from  circumstances  beyond  his  control,  the  repellent 
and  even,  it  may  be,  misleading  form  in  which  the 
truth  was  presented  to  his  mind,  that  the  degree  of 
guilt  must  vary  indefinitely  ;  and  therefore  we  cannot 
say  of  any  particular  sinner  that  he  shall  perish  ever- 

*  Rev.  xxi.  8 ;  xxii.  15. 


HERESY  DEFINED.  3I9 

lastingly.  The  sum  total  of  man's  capacities  for  ever- 
lasting life  are  not  necessarily  exhausted  by  tlie  few- 
gross  acts  incident  to  social  relations  or  open  to 
human  valuation.  But  it  is  on  such  acts  alone  that 
human  judgments  can  be  passed  either  in  the  sphere 
of  faith  or  morals.  Neither  a  murderer,  nor  liar,  nor 
heretic  can  enter  heaven.  But  it  is  the  murderous,  or 
lying,  or  heretical  disposition  which  excludes,  not  the 
gross  act  done,  perhaps,  in  a  moment  of  sudden  tempta- 
tion or  in  consequence  of  inherited  proclivities  or  other 
extenuating  circumstances. 

But  let  us  clearly  understand  w^hat  is  meant  by 
heresy.  Literally,  it  means  a  deliberate  choice  ;  theo- 
logically, the  deliberate  choice  of  error  in  preference 
to  truth.  No  one,  therefore,  is  formally  a  heretic 
who  errs  unwilhngly — that  is,  through  ignorance. 
But  is  wilful  and  deliberate  heresy  a  possible  state 
of  mind  ?  "  It  may  be  safely  affirmed,"  says  the 
late  Dean  Stanley,  "that  in  the  only  sense  in  which 
these  words  can  have  any  meaning  no  one  ever  did 
or  ever  can  'wilfully  reject  the  Catholic  Faith.' "^ 
With  equal  plausibility  Socrates  maintained  that  no 
one  could  be  wilfully  vicious.  And  undoubtedly 
that  opinion  lias  an  element  of  truth  in  it.  Fur  "  if  a 
perfectly  clear  intellectual  conviction  of  the  goodness 

'   I'Ae  Athanatfian  Creed,  pp.  Vi,  'Jo. 


320  S/NS  OF  IGNORANCE  EXCUSABLE. 

of  the  end  and  of  the  necessity  of  the  means  is 
present  to  a  man,  he  cannot  act  otherwise  than 
right."  ^  So,  too,  it  may  be  said  that  if  a  man  has  a 
perfectly  clear  intellectual  apprehension  of  the  truth, 
and  also  a  clear  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  embracing 
it,  it  is  morally  impossible  that  he  should  reject  it.  But, 
in  both  cases,  the  man  may  have  incapacitated  him- 
self for  this  clear  apprehension  and  conviction  by  a 
previous  course  of  misconduct ;  and  therefore  he  is 
guilty  of  wilfully  rejecting  virtue  or  truth,  though  at 
the  moment  of  rejection  he  may  be  unaware  of  what 
he  is  doing.  Aristotle  points  out  very  clearly  the 
difference  between  acting  ignorantly  and  acting  he- 
cause  of  ignorance.^  When  a  man  kills  his  fellow  in 
a  fit  of  drunkenness  he  is  rightly  indicted  for  murder, 
because,  though  ignorant  of  what  he  was  doing  at  the 
time,  he  was  the  cause  of  his  own  ignorance  by 
getting  drunk,  and  was  therefore  responsible  for 
all  that  followed  from  the  initial  sin.  Merope,  on  the 
other  hand,  slew  her  son  through  ignorance  for  which 
she  was  in  no  way  accountable,  and  was  therefore 
blameless.  It  is  awful  to  think  of  the  way  in  which 
destiny  may  thus  be  fixed  irrevocably,  for  nations  and 
for  individuals,  by  what  men  ignorantly  term  trifles. 

'  Sir  A.  Grant's  Edition  of  Aristotle's  Ethics,  p.  125. 
»  Ethics,  bk.  iii.  c.  i.  §  14-16. 


CRITICAL   MOMEXTS.  321 

In  the  conllict  of  virtue  and  vice,  truth  and  falsoliood, 
all  may  be  doubtful  up  to  a  certain  point ;  then  a 
crisis  is  reached  when  a  deliberate  choice  is  made  of 
the  wrong  course,  and  the  man  or  nation  "  finds  no 
place  of  repentance "  afterwards,  though  "  sought 
carefully  with  tears."  There  is  "  a  great  gulf  fixed  " 
which  cannot  be  passed. 

"  Once  to  evpry  man  and  nation  comes  the  moment  to  decide, 
In  the  strife  of  truth  with  falsehood,  for  the  good  or  evil  side  : 
Some  great  cause,  God's  new  Messiah,  offering  each  the  bluom  or 

blight, 
Parts  the  goats  upon  the  left  hand  and  the  sheep  upon  the  right : 
And  the  choice  goes  by  for  ever  'twixt  that  daxknesa  and  that  light." 

But  true  as  this  is  in  the  abstract,  who  shall  dare 
say  it  of  any  one  in  particular  ?  I  repeat  that  no 
one  is  formally  a  heretic  who  has  not  deliberately 
chosen  error  in  preference  to  truth ;  in  other  words, 
whose  ignorance  of  the  truth  is  not  self -caused.  The 
so-called  "damnatory  clauses"  of  the  Athanasian 
Creed  are  thus  applicable  to  Christians  only,  and 
among  Christians,  to  those  only  who  wilfully  reject 
the  truth.  And  we  may  say,  finally,  that  botli  as 
regards  faith  and  morals,  no  one  "  shall  perish  ever- 
lastingly "  whom  Omnipotent  Love  can  save.  "  For 
we  must  needs  die,  and  are  as  water  spilt  on  the 
ground,  which  cannot  be  gathered  up  again ;  neither 
doth   God    respect  any  person  :    yet  doth    He  devise 


322  BANE   OF  EARTHLY  HAPPINESS. 

means,  that  His  banished  be  not  expelled  from 
Him."  ^  It  may  be  asserted  positively  that  every 
human  being  will  eventually  be  as  happy  as  his  or 
her  own  constitution  will  allow. 

"And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know 
Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  Whom 
Thou  hast  sent."  "  Life  eternal " !  "  Here  we  have  no 
continuing  city."  Above,  below,  around,  on  sky  and 
land  and  sea,  we  behold  every  where,  the  tokens  and 
evidence  of  chanore  and  dissolution.  Nature  is  now 
very  beautiful  in  her  summer  robe ;  ^  but  it  is  a  fleet- 
ing beauty,  ere  long  to  be  succeeded  by  beauty  of 
another  kind — the  pathetic  beauty  of  decay.  The 
hectic  flush  of  consumption  will  soon  be  on  the  leaves, 
and  the  trees,  which  are  now  decked  in  all  their  glory 
of  foliage,  will  be  swinging  their  leafless  branches  in 
the  breeze  like  parents  bereaved  of  their  children. 
And  is  this  to  go  on  for  ever  ?  Is  there  no  world 
where  the  worm  never  gnaws  at  the  root  of  the  rose, 
where  the  yellowness  of  decay  never  comes  upon  the 
woods  and  there  is  no  winter  to  destroy  the  promise 
of  spring  and  the  splendour  of  summer  ?  Yes,  there 
is  a  "  life  eternal "  reserved  for  those  who  are  faithful 

'  2  Sam.  xiv.  11. 

*  This  Lecture  was  delivered  in  substance  in  Eipon  Cathedral,  in 
Jaue,  1887. 


BANE   OF  EARTHLY  HAmXESS.  323 

in  tliis  world  of  fleetinc:  sliadows  and  liomclcss  affoc- 


o 


tions  ;  a  life  where  they  shall  no  longer  see  "  throuirh 
a  glass  darkl}^"  but  "  face  to  face,"  according  to  the 
promise,  "Thine  eyes  shall  see  the  King  in  His 
heauty;  the}'"  shall  look  upon  the  land  that  is  very 
far  ofi',"  not  in  distance  of  space,  but  in  man's  capacity 
to  behold  it.  And  this  great  promise  is  ratified  by 
the  unquenchable  instincts  of  mankind.  There  are 
in  man  latent  powers  and  powers  half  revealed,  for 
which  human  life  offers  no  adequate  explanation. 
Man  is  a  worshipping  being,  and  worship  demands 
for  its  justification  a  broader  field  than  this  life.  A 
few  sliort  years  cannot  explain  the  longing  of  the 
soul  after  ideal  excellence  and  immortal  love.  There 
is  within  us  a  strange  sense  of  expectancy.  "  My 
mind,"  says  Fichte,  "  can  take  no  hold  of  the  present 
world,  nor  rest  in  it  for  a  moment;  but  my  whole 
nature  rushes  on  with  irresistible  force  towards  a 
future  and  a  better  state  of  things."  A  divine  dis- 
content is  the  appanage  of  our  nature.  The  perfect 
of  whatever  sort,  be  it  the  purity  of  a  flower,  or  the 
harmony  of  music,  or  the  saintlincss  of  a  human 
character,  awakes  a  sense  within  us  that  protests 
against  annihilation.  Man  is  plainly  made  for 
eternity. 


^TiiE  Unseen  Universe,  or  Physical  Specula- 
tions ON  A  Future  State.  Third  Edition. 
London  :  Macmillan,  1875. 

The  rapid  sale  of  this  book  proves  at  least  the 
interest  which  it  has  excited,  and  an  examination  of 
its  contents  fully  justifies  the  favour  with  which  it 
has  been  received. 

It  is,  in  fact,  a  masterly  retort,  from  a  purely 
scientific  point  of  view,  upon  the  assaults  commonly 
made  oh  Christianity  from  the  standpoint  of  a 
materialistic  philosophy.  It  is  not  an  attempt  to 
prove  that  Christianity  is  true,  but  an  argument 
to  demonstrate  that  the  ordinary  objections  made  to 
it  on  the  ground  of  its  beinor  inconsistent  with 
physical  science  have  in  reality  no  scientific  basis 
to  support  them;  that,  in  short,  the  Christian 
Revelation,  freed  from  the  traditions  of  many  of 
its  professors,  whether  true  or  not  on  other  grounds, 
so  far  from  being  in  conflict  with  physical  science,  is 
in  truth  in  wonderful  harmony  with  its  most  recent 
conclusions.     It  is  no  longer  a  secret  that  the  work  is 

*  In  farther  illustration  of  the  argument  on  pp.  44-48  I  append 
here  a  review,  which  I  published  fourteen  years  ago,  and  for  which 
I  received  the  thanks  of  the  authors  of  the  book. 


A  KEVIEW.  325 

lilt*  joint  production  of  two  of  the  most  eminent 
physicists  in  the  United  Kingdom  ;  and  it  is  also  no 
secret,  we  believe,  that  it  has  passed  under  the  super- 
vision of  some  other  men  of  science,  one  of  wliom,  at 
least,  stands  without  a  rival  among  original  thinkers 
and  investigators  in  his  own  field  of  physical  science. 
It  is  a  book,  therefore,  which  scientific  men  cannot 
afibrd  to  put  aside  with  a  few  supercilious  sneers. 

One  of  them,  indeed,  with  the  confidence  of 
youthful  ardour,  has  essayed  such  a  task  in  the 
pages  of  the  Fortnightly  Review,  Being  a  man  of 
great,  though  unbalanced,  intellectual  power,  the 
authors  have  paid  him  the  compliment,  in  the  Pre- 
face to  their  second  edition,  of  laughing  him  out  of 
court  in  some  admirably  humorous  remarks  on 
his  burlesque  attack.  "  He  appears,"  they  say,  "  to 
be  unable  to  conceive  the  possibility  of  a  spiritual 
body  which  shall  not  die  with  the  natural  body.  Or 
rather,  he  conceives  that  he  is  in  a  position  to  assert, 
from  his  knowledge  of  the  universe,  that  such  a 
thing  cannot  be.  We  join  issue  with  him  at  once, 
for  the  depth  of  our  ignorance  with  regard  to  the 
unseen  universe  forbids  us  to  come  to  any  such  con- 
clusion with  regard  to  a  possible  spiritual  body." 

In  another  place,  the  critic  (Professor  Clifford) 
ridiculed    the    stury   of    the    sun   going    down    upon 


326  "  THE    UNSEEN  UNIVERSE.'' 

"Gideon,"  and  here  is  the  good-humoured  way  in 
which  the  authors  o£  The  Unseen  Universe  con- 
descend to  answer  their  assailant.  "How  the  sun 
could  go  down  upon  '  Gideon '  is  not  obvious.  Had 
it  done  so  it  would  certainly  have  occasioned  personal 
inconvenience  (to  say  the  least)  to  that  hero.  But 
what's  in  a  name  ?  Our  critic  was  evidently  thinking 
of  Joshua  and  *  Gibeon/  and  why  should  a  critic 
care  about  the  difference  between  Amorites  and 
Amalekites  ?  It  is  a  mere  matter  of  spelling — a 
trifle.  Similar  mistakes  in  a  previous  article  are 
apologized  for  in  a  foot-note  appended  to  that  on 
The  Unseen  Universe.  Probably  the  author  de- 
signed the  apology  to  extend  to  it  also,  but  forgot 
to  say  so ;  again  a  trifle.  But  it  is  of  straws,  some 
even  weaker  than  these,  that  the  imposing  article  is 
built ;  so  that  when  we  come  forth  to  battle  we  find 
nothing  to  reply  to."  But  it  is  time  to  give  some  idea 
of  the  contents  of  the  book.  It  opens  with  a  succinct 
statement  of  the  tendency  of  physical  research  to 
shake,  in  a  certain  class  of  minds,  belief  in  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  Belief  in  the  existence  of 
the  soul  after  death  has  indeed  ever  been,  under 
various  phases,  the  prevalent  doctrine  of  mankind. 
Unbelievers  in  the  doctrine  have  always  been, 
numerically,    an    insignificant    minority;     but     the 


A    REVIEW.  327 

authors  admit  that  "the  strength  of  this  minority 
lias  of  hito  years  greatly  increased,  until  at  tin; 
present  moment  it  numbers  in  its  ranks  not  a  few  of 
the  most  intelligent,  the  most  earnest,  and  the  most 
virtuous  of  men."  They  think,  however,  that,  "could 
we  examine  these,  we  should  find  them  to  be 
unwilling  unbelievers,  compelled  by  the  working  of 
their  intellects  to  abandon  the  desire  of  their  hearts, 
only  after  many  struggles  and  much  bitterness  of 
spirit."  Others,  again,  without  going  so  far  as  to 
deny  the  perpetuation  of  man's  individual  life  beyond 
the  grave,  are  full  of  doubt  and  painful  despondency, 
being  anxious  to  believe,  yet  unable  to  find  any 
stable  ground  for  their  faith. 

**  It  is  the  object  of  the  present  volume,"  the  authors 
say,  "to  examine  the  intellectual  process  that  has 
brought  about  these  results,  and  we  hope  to  show 
that  the  conclusion  at  which  these  men  have  arrived 
is  not  only  not  justified  by  what  we  know  of  the 
physical  universe,  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
are  many  lines  of  thought  which  point  very  strongly 
towards  an  opposite  conclusion." 

From  this  statement  of  the  object  of  the  book  the 
authors  pass  on  to  a  rapid  review  of  the  views  held 
by  mankind  touching  the  life  beyond  death  till  the 
dawn  of  Christianity  upon  tlio  field  of  humnn  spocu- 


328  '•  THE   UNSEEN  UNIVERSE. 

lation.  Our  Lord — we  are  condensing  the  statement 
of  the  authors — impressed  upon  His  hearers  a  distinct 
belief  in  a  future  life  which  was  to  be  enclosed  in  a 
bodily  form.  Addressing  an  ignorant  multitude  who 
could  not  make  nice  distinctions,  He  occasionally  used 
language  that  seems  to  imply  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  the  material  particles  which  are  laid  in  the  grave 
and  scattered  in  space.  But  that  this  kind  of  language 
was  "economical" — that  is  to  say,  the  nearest  approach 
to  the  truth  of  which  the  rude  minds  of  the  multitude 
were  capable — is  proved  by  His  answer  to  the  captious 
objection  of  the  cultivated  Sadducees.  Men  in  the 
future  life,  He  said,  will  be  "like  the  angels" 
(tdayyfXof),  whose  bodies  certainly  are  not  formed  of 
the  materials  of  which  mortal  human  bodies  consist. 
And  St.  Paul  gives  greater  emphasis  still  to  the 
difference  between  the  present  human  body  and  its 
future  development,  when  he  says  distinctly  that  the 
body  which  is  laid  in  the  grave  is  not  "  that  body 
that  shall  be."  The  two  are,  indeed,  identical ;  but  it 
IS  an  identity  of  forj)i  (we  mean  the  word  in  its 
philosophical  sense),  not  of  material  particles. 

Another  peculiarity  of  the  Christian  Revelation  of 
which  the  authors  take  note  is  the  especial  emphasis 
which  the  New  Testament  gives  to  the  perishable 
nature  of  the  visible  creation.     It  is  represented  as 


A   REVIEW.  329 

something  temporal  and  transitory,  while  the  unseen 
universe,  on  tlie  utlicr  liand,  is  eternal. 

From  this  point  the  authors  pass  on  to  discuss  the 
various  theories  held  at  different  times  as  to  the 
constitution  and  destiny  of  the  visible  universe.  It 
is  impossible,  however,  to  offer  anything  like  a  sum- 
mary of  the  discussion.  It  is  very  clear  and  able, 
and  shows  a  complete  mastery  of  the  subject ;  but  it 
is  in  parts  too  abstruse  for  the  general  reader,  and  is 
altogether  so  dovetailed  together  that  it  is  impossible 
to  give  any  idea  of  the  argument  by  separate  quota- 
tions. We  must,  therefore,  send  our  readers  to  the 
book  itself,  merely  observing  that  the  authors  assume, 
"  as  absolutely  self-evident,  the  existence  of  a  Deity 
Who  is  the  Creator  of  all  things;"  and  that  they 
*'  look  upon  the  laws  of  the  universe  as  those  laws 
accordinc:  to  which  the  bein^^s  in  the  universe  are 
conditioned  by  the  Governor  thereof,  as  regards 
time,  place,  and  sensation." 

But  what  do  we  mean  by  creation  ?  Any  addition 
to,  or  subtraction  from,  the  sum  total  of  existence  are 
ideas  which  are  to  the  human  mind  metaphysically 
inconceivable.  The  difficulty  is  stated  by  Sir  W. 
Hamilton  (lect.  on  Met.  II.,  p.  405)  as  follows : — 

"  We  are  unable  to  construe  it  in  thought,  that 
there  can    be   an    atom    absolutely   added    to,  or   an 


330  •'  THE    UNSEEN  UNIVERSES 

atom  absolutely  taken  away  from,  existence  in 
general.  Make  the  experiment.  Form  to  your- 
selves a  notion  of  the  universe  ;  now  can  you  con- 
ceive that  the  quantity  of  existence,  of  which  the 
universe  is  the  sum,  is  either  amplified  or  diminished  ? 
You  can  conceive  the  creation  of  a  world  as  lightly  as 
you  can  conceive  the  creation  of  an  atom.  And  what 
is  creation?  It  is  not  the  springing  of  nothing  into 
something.  Far  from  it.  It  is  conceived,  and  is  by  us 
conceivable,  merely  as  the  evolution  of  a  new  form 
of  existence  by  the  fiat  of  the  Deity.  Let  us 
suppose  the  crisis  of  creation.  Can  we  realize  it  to 
ourselves,  in  thouo^ht,  that  the  moment  after  the 
universe  came  into  manifested  being  there  was  a 
larger  complement  of  existence  in  the  universe  and 
its  Author  tosrether  than  there  was  the  moment  before 
in  the  Deity  Himself  alone  ?  " 

The  authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe  state  their 
view  of  the  matter  as  follows  : — 

"  As  far  as  we  can  judge,  the  visible  universe — the 
universe  of  worlds — is  not  eternal,  while  however  the 
invisible  universe,  or  that  which  we  may  for  illustra- 
tion at  least  associate  with  the  ethereal  medium,  is 
necessarily  eternal.  The  visible  universe  must  have 
had  its  origin  in  time,  no  doubt  from  a  nebulous  con- 
dition.    But  in  this  condition  it  can  hardly  have  been 


A   REV  JEW.  33 « 

fit  for  tlie  reception  of  life.  Life  must  therefore  have 
been  created  afterwards.  We  have  thus  at  least  two 
separate  creations,  both  taking  place  in  time — the 
one  of  matter,  and  the  other  of  life.  And  even  if  it 
were  possible,  which  it  is  not,  to  get  over  one  of  the 
difficulties  attending  this  hypothesis,  that  of  creation 
in  time,  by  regarding  the  visible  universe  as  eternal ; 
yet  even  then  we  must  regard  matter  and  life  as  im- 
plying two  separate  creative  acts,  if  we  assume  the 
nebulous  hypothesis  to  be  true." 

The  materialists  are  thus  in  a  dilemma.  Committed 
to  the  doctrine  of  continuity,  they  come  at  last  upon 
two  breaks  in  that  doctrine — the  creation  of  the 
physical  universe  and  the  apparition  of  life  upon 
its  surface.  It  is  impossible,  within  our  limits,  to 
condense  in  an  intelligible  manner  the  argument  by 
which  the  authors  seek  to  demonstrate  that  "the 
visible  universe  must  have  had  its  origin  in  time," 
and  must  ultimately  pass  away  and  be  absorbed  in 
the  unseen.  But  the  difficulty  of  reconciling,  on  tho 
materialistic  hypothesis,  the  origin  of  life  with  the 
doctrine  of  continuity  is  sufficiently  apparent.  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz  and  Sir  W.  Thomson  have  attempted 
to  get  over  the  difficulty  by  suggesting  meteoric 
transmission  of  germs  of  life  from  one  planet  to 
another.     But  this  is  to  evade  the  difficulty,  not  to 


332  ''THE    UNSEEN  UNIVERSES 

solve  it.  For  whence  came  the  primordial  life-germ  ? 
To  that  question  the  apostles  of  materialism  can  give 
no  answer.  The  authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe  meet 
the  difficulty  by  the  hypothesis,  supported  by  much 
subtlety  of  reasoning,  that  "  the  material  as  well  as 
the  life  of  the  visible  universe"  have  "been  developed 
from  the  unseen,  in  which  they  had  existed  from 
eternity."  This  hypothesis,  at  all  events,  avoids 
collision  with  the  doctrine  of  continuity,  or  any 
other  well-established  conclusion  of  physical  science. 
The  authors,  in  this  respect  more  modest  than  many 
of  their  critics,  do  not  claim  for  their  view  more 
authority  than  that  of  a  highly  probable  hypothesis. 
They  do  not  claim  to  have  established  it  as  a  fact, 
but  only  to  have  shown  that  it  is  not  inconsistent 
with  any  established  fact  in  physical  science,  while, 
on  the  contrary,  there  is  much  in  the  constitution 
of  the  visible  universe  which  points  in  the  direction 
of  their  conclusion.  But  is  that  conclusion  consistent 
with  the  teaching  of  Christianity  ?  Some  there  are 
who  appear  to  think  that  it  is  not.  The  cry  of 
"  Atheism  "  and  "  Pantheism  "  has  been  raised  against 
the  authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe,  and  they  have 
been  accused  of  denying  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  merely  because  they  accept  St.  Paul's  state- 
ment  of   that   doctrine   as   set   forth   in  1  Cor.    xv. 


A   REVIEW.  333 

Tills  latter  charp^e,  therefore,  we  may  dismiss  wiLli 
the  remark  of  PaUn',  that  tliose  arc  unconsciously 
aiuonf^  the  most  danrjorous  foes  of  Christianity 
who  insist  on  making  it  answerable  with  its  life 
for  the  truth  of  tlieories  which  in  no  sense  belong 
to  its  essence,  and  which,  in  some  cases,  arc  entirely 
opposed  to  its  spirit.  But  the  charge  of  "  Atheism"  or 
"  Pantheism " — which  is  but  Atheism  in  a  poetical 
vesture — is  more  plausible,  and  accordingly  calls  for 
a  few  w^ords  of  criticism. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  the  authors  of  The  Un- 
srpu  Universe  express  their  belief  in  the  following 
doctrines,  which  are,  in  truth,  in  intimate  connection 
with  their  argument : — 

1.  An  eternal  intelligent  Deity,  consisting  of  three 
Persons  in  one  undivided  substance  :  the  first  Person 
being  "absolute"  or  "unconditioned"  {i.e.,  in  the 
language  of  theology,  the  "  fount  of  Deity ") ;  the 
other  two  Persons  being  "  conditioned "  by  their  re- 
lation to  the  first  Person  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the 
created  universe  on  the  other — the  one  as  its  develop- 
ing Agent,  "  the  other  as  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  Life." 

2.  The  Incarnation  of  the  second  Person  of  the 
Trinity,  His  Resurrection  and  Ascension. 

3.  The  existence  of  angels  and  tlieir  operations  in 
the  realm  of  nature. 


334  "  THE    UNSEEN   UNIVERSE." 

These  are  doctrines  which  are  openly  asserted  in 
The  Unseen  Universe.  When  therefore  the  authors 
are  accused  of  Pantheism,  the  meaning  must  be  that 
their  argument  involves  that  conclusion  because  it 
postulates,  in  some  sense,  the  eternity,  not  of  the 
universe  of  visible  matter  and  fleeting  phenomena, 
but  of  an  unseen  universe.  But  the  objectors  have 
evidently  not  considered  what  their  accusation  implies. 
Let  us  endeavour  to  point  it  out  to  them.  How  do 
they  realize  to  their  own  minds  the  existence  of  God 
prior  to  the  creation  of  the  visible  universe  ?  Do 
they  not  think  of  Him  as  existing  in  eternal  light  ? 
And  does  not  St.  Paul  tell  us  that  He  is  a  Being  Who 
has  existed  from  eternity  "  in  unapproachable  light "  ? 
Have  they  never  heard,  moreover,  of  the  Aoyoc 
iv^Lcxd^TOQ  and  the  Aoyoc  TrpocpopiKog  ?  And  do  they 
know  what  these  terms  mean  ?  "  The  terms  were 
received  into  the  Church,"  says  Dr.  Newman  {Avians, 
p.  214) ;  "  the  cv^mOfroc  standing  for  the  W^ord,  as 
hid  from  everlasting  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
while  the  7rpo(j)opiK6g  was  the  Son  sent  forth  into  the 
world,  in  apparent  separation  from  God."  But  there 
must  have  been  a  world  in  some  sense,  some  unseen 
universe,  for  the  Son  to  be  "  sent  forth  into  "  it  "  in 
apparent  separation  from  God."  And  this  is  precisely 
the  doctrine  of  The  Unseen  Universe.     The   authors 


A   RE  VIE  IV.  335 

liold  tliat  there  is  an  eternal  ethereal  iiiediuni— St. 
Paul's  "unapproachable  light,"  in  fact — into  whieli 
the  Son  went  forth  to  develop  the  cosmical  universe, 
which  the  third  Person  of  the  Trinity  endowed  with 
life.  The  visible  universe  is  thus  a  development  out 
of  the  unseen,  into  which  it  will  disappear  again 
when  its  mission  is  fulfilled. 

"  If  then  we  regard  the  universe  from  this  point  of 
view,"  the  authors  say  at  the  end  of  their  inquiry, 
"  we  are  led  to  a  scientific  conception  of  it  which  is, 
we  have  seen,  strikingly  analogous  to  that  system  with 
which  we  are  presented  in  the  Christian  religion.  For 
not  only  are  the  nebulous  beginning  and  fiery  termina- 
tion of  the  present  visible  universe  indicated  in  the 
Christian  records,  but  a  constitution  and  power  are 
assigned  to  the  unseen  universe  strikingly  analogous 
to  those  at  which  we  may  arrive  by  a  legitimate 
scientific  process."  In  other  words,  physical  science 
points  to  an  inevitable  cataclysm  of  the  visible  uni- 
verse. A  constant  dissipation  of  energy  is  going  on 
which  is  gradually,  however  remotely,  impelling  the 
planets  towards  their  suns  and  the  suns  towards  each 
other.  The  result  will  be  the  absorption  of  the  planets 
into  the  suns,  the  collision  of  the  suns  with  each  other, 
and  the  consequent  fusion  of  the  visible  universe  by 
"fervent  heat,"  and  its  final   reabsorption   into   the 


336  "  THE   UNSEEN  UNIVERSES 

realms  of  unseen  but  substantial  realities.  These 
are  the  prognostications  of  physical  science  as  ex- 
pounded by  the  accomplished  authors  of  The  Unseen 
Universe,  and  they  are  at  the  same  time  the  pre- 
dictions of  Holy  Writ.  The  coincidence  is,  to  say 
the  least,  remarkable,  and  ou2:ht  to  su^^o^est,  alike 
to  the  students  of  Nature  and  of  Revelation,  the 
need  of  caution  and  patience  when  their  respective 
utterances  seem  to  disagree. 

The  truth  is,  those  who  denounce  such  speculations 
as  are  reverently  put  forth  in  The  Unseen  Universe 
merely  prove  themselves  as  ignorant  of  the  theology 
of  the  question  as  they  are  of  its  philosophy. 
Leibnitz  combined  a  competent  knowledge  of  theo- 
logy with  an  unsurpassed  capacity  for  philosophical 
speculation,  and  those  who  have  read  his  Esscvis  de 
Theodisee  or  Lettres  cb  Bourguet  are  aware  that  he 
has  committed  himself  to  conclusions  in  regard  to 
creation,  which  go  at  least  as  far  as  those  propounded 
in  The  Unseen  Universe,  as  the  following  passage 
will  show.  Admitting:  that  the  universe  no  more  had 
a  commencement,  in  the  sense  of  a  creation  literally 
out  of  nothing,  than  it  will  have  an  end,  he  denied 
that  the  universe  is,  therefore,  "  eternal  as  God." 
"  God  does  not  endure  ;  He  is.  And  this  is  eternity. 
The    universe    changes   incessantly,  aspiring,   so   to 


A   RE  VIE  IV.  337 

speak,  after  absolute  existence  witliout  ever  attainini; 
it.  And  this  is  time."  Or  if  the  great  name  of 
Leibnitz  should  be  contemned  by  the  critics  who 
have  accused  the  authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe 
of  Pantheism,  we  will  substitute  for  it  a  name  which 
they  profess  to  revere,  though  we  have  a  shrewd 
suspicion  that  their  acquaintance  with  his  writings 
does  not  go  beyond  an  occasional  glimpse  of  them  for 
purposes  of  controversy  rather  than  for  serious  study. 
The  author  to  whom  we  refer,  while  declining  to  dog- 
matize in  a  matter  which  properly  belongs  to  the 
domain  of  open  questions,  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that, 
"  Since  God  has  always  been  Sovereign  Lord,  He  must 
always  have  had  creatures  over  whom  He  exercised 
His  sovereign  authority."  In  a  very  subtle  argument 
he  contends  that  the  creature  has  always  existed,  yet 
cannot  be  said  to  be  co-eternal  with  the  Creator. 
This  seems  to  land  him  in  a  dilemma  from  which  there 
is  no  escape.  I  quote  the  dilemma  as  stated  by  him- 
self and  his  reply  : — '■ 

"  But  if  I  make  such  a  reply,  it  will  be  said  to  me, 
How,  then,  are  they  [the  angels]  not  co-eternal  with 
the  Creator,  if  He  and  they  have  always  been  ?  How 
even  can  they  be  said  to  have  been  created  if  we  are 
to  understand  that  they  have  always  existed  ?  What 
shall  we  reply  to  this  ?     Shall  we  say  that  both  state- 

Z 


338  "  THE    UNSEEN  UNIVERSE r 

ments  are  true  ? — that  they  always  have  been,  since 
they  have  been  in  all  time,  they  being  created  along 
with  time,  or  time  along  with  them,  and  yet  that  also 
they  were  created  ?  For  similarly  we  will  not  deny 
that  time  itself  was  created,  though  no  one  doubts 
that  time  has  been  in  all  time  ;  for  if  it  has  not  been 
in  all  time,  then  there  was  a  time  when  there  was  no 
time ;  and  who  could  be  such  a  fool  as  to  make  such 
an  assertion  ?  For  we  can  reasonably  say  there  was 
a  time  when  Rome  was  not ;  there  was  a  time  when 
Jerusalem  was  not ;  there  was  a  time  when  Abraham 
was  not ;  and  so  on.  In  fine,  if  the  world  was  not 
made  at  the  commencement  of  time,  but  after  some 
time  had  elapsed,  we  can  say  there  was  a  time  when 
the  world  was  not.  But  to  say  there  was  a  time 
when  time  was  not  is  as  absurd  as  to  say  there  was 
a  man  when  there  was  no  man ;  or,  this  world  was 
when  this  world  was  not.  But  if  we  are  speaking  of 
different  objects,  that  form  of  expression  is  allowable  ; 
as,  there  was  another  man  when  this  man  was  not. 
Thus  we  can  reasonably  say  there  was  another  time 
when  this  time  was  not ;  but  who  could  be  such  a 
simpleton  as  to  say  there  was  a  time  when  there  was 
no  time  ?  As,  then,  we  say  that  time  was  created, 
though  we  also  say  that  it  has  always  been,  since  in 
all  time  time  has  been ;  so  it  does  not  follow  that,  if 


A   REVIEW.  339 

the  angels  liave  always  been,  they  were  tlierefore  not 
created.  For  we  say  that  tliey  have  always  been 
because  they  have  been  in  all  time  ;  and  we  say  that 
they  have  been  in  all  time  because  time  itself  could 
in  no  wise  have  been  without  them.  For  when  there 
is  no  creature  whose  changing  movements  admit  of 
succession,  there  cannot  be  time  at  all.  And  conse- 
quently, even  if  they  have  always  existed,  they  were 
created ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  have  always 
existed  are  they  therefore  co-eternal  with  the  Creator. 
For  He  has  always  existed  in  unchangeable  eternity  ; 
while  they  were  created,  and  are  said  to  have  been 
always,  because  they  have  been  in  all  time,  time  being 
impossible  without  the  creature.  But  since  time 
passes  away  by  its  changefulness,  it  cannot  be  co- 
eternal  with  changeless  eternity.  And  consequently, 
though  the  immortality  of  the  angels  does  not  pass  in 
time,  does  not  become  past  as  if  now  it  were  not,  nor 
has  a  future  as  if  it  were  not  yet,  still  their  move- 
ments, which  are  the  basis  of  time,  do  pass  from 
future  to  past ;  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  co- 
eternal  with  the  Creator,  in  Whose  movement  we 
cannot  say  that  there  has  been  thatwliieh  now  is  not, 
or  shall  be  that  which  is  not  yet.  Wherefore,  if  God 
has  always  been  Lord,  He  has  always  had  creatures 
under  His  dominion — creatures,  however,  not  be^icotteu 


340 


"  THE    UNSEEN  UNIVERSE. 


of  Him,  but  created  by  Him  out  of  nothing ;  nor  co- 
eternal  with  Him,  for  He  was  before  them,  though  at 
no  time  without  them,  because  He  preceded  them,  not 
by  lapse  of  time,  but  by  His  abiding  eternity."  ^ 

It  is  in  this  reverent  and  liberal  spirit  that  St. 
Augustine  discusses  the  question  handled  so  ably  by 
the  authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe,  and  they  may 
be  well  content  to  lie  under  an  imputation  of  heresy 
which  would  include  the  great  doctor  of  the  Western 
Church. 

Nor  is  St.  Augustine's  the  only  great  name  which 
comes  under  the  condemnation  passed  on  the  authors 
of  The  Unseen  Universe.  Origen,  for  instance,  as 
quoted  by  Cardinal  Newman,  says : — "  As  there  can- 
not be  a  Father  without  there  being  a  Son,  nor  an 
owner  without  there  being  a  possession  ...  so 
neither  can  God  be  called  Omnipotent  unless  He  has 
those  on  whom  to  exercise  power;  and,  therefore, 
that  He  may  be  shown  to  be  Omnipotent,  all  things 
must  necessarily  subsist." 

On  this  Cardinal  Newman  observes : — "  As  to 
Origen's  notion  of  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  it 
must  be  recollected  that,  though  in  matter  of  fact, 
creation  is  not  from  eternity,  yet  it  might  have  been 
had  God  so  willed.     At  least,  so  says  Suarez,"  whom 

*  De  Ciiitate  Dei,  lib.  xii.  c.  15. 


A   RE  r IE  IK  341 

the  cardinal  quotes  accordingly,  and  adds :  "  It  must 
be  recollected,  too,  that  St.  Thomas  lays  it  down, 
'  (^uod  iiiuiiduiii  incopisse  sola  fide  t^nutur,  et  de- 
monstrative probare  non  potest.'  And  he  says : 
'  Voluntas  Dei  ratione  investigari  non  potest,  nisi 
circa  ea  quaja  absolute  necesse  est  Deum  velle.' 
That  in  Origen's  time  the  '  Novitas  rerum  crea- 
tarum  '  could  be  called  an  article  of  faith  is  very 
doubtful."  ^ 

Victor  Cousin  argues  on  much  the  same  lines  as  St. 
Augustine  and  Origen.  He  holds  that  "  To  create  is 
not  to  make  somethinor  out  of  nothinfi: — for  this  is 
contradictory — but  to  originate  from  self.  We  create 
so  often  as  we  exert  our  free  causality,  and  something 
is  created  by  us  when  something  begins  to  be  by 
virtue  of  the  free  causality  wdiich  belongs  to  us. 
The  divine  creation  is  of  the  same  character.  In 
creating  the  universe  God  docs  not  draw  it  from 
nothing:  he  draws  it  from  Himself.  The  creation 
of  the  universe  is  thus  neces.sary ;  it  is  (Jod  passing 
into  activity,  but  not  exhausted  in  the  act." 

The  necessity  w^hich  Cousin  here  predicates  of  God 

I   understand   to    be    a   moral,   not   a    metaphysical 

necessity ;    Omnipotent    Love    being    spontaneously 

constrained  to  impart  Himself.    And  as  with  creation, 

*  Kewman's  Tracts,  Theological  and  Ecclesiantical,  pp.  li:jJ-'J34. 

/  2 


342  "  THE    UNSEEN  UNIVERSE:' 

SO  with  Kedeinption.  Metaphysically,  God  was  under 
no  necessity  to  redeem  mankind ;  but  morally,  "  God 
so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  Begotten 
Son."  Love  is  ever  active.  Self-sacrifice  is  of  its 
essence,  and  in  the  Eternal  Love  the  sacrifice  of  self 
is  an  eternal  joy.  As  Cousin  says,  God  has  been 
eternally  "  passing  into  activity,  but  not  exhausted  in 
the  act."  In  spiritual  matters  "  it  is  more  blessed  to 
give  than  to  receive."  We  increase  our  own  store  by 
our  largess.  As  the  voice  is  enriched  by  singing,  so 
is  love  by  giving — not  "  goods  to  feed  the  poor,"  or 
"  body  to  be  burnt,"  but — itself.  But  inasmuch  as 
God's  life  has  been  full  from  eternity,  it  cannot  be 
enriched,  and  therefore  His  love  must  have  been 
eternally  energizing. 

Sir  William  Hamilton  has  attempted  to  refute 
Cousin ;  ^  but  his  refutation  is  really  a  sophism  :  it 
misses  the  kernel  of  Cousin's  argument. 

We  have  felt  it  necessary  to  make  these  remarks 
because  we  are  anxious  that  Church  principles  should 
not  be  discredited  by  alliance  with  crude  and  un- 
tenable dogmatism  on  questions  which  the  Churcii 
has  left  open.  She  insists,  indeed,  on  loyalty  to  her 
creed  on  the  part  of  her  children ;  but  she  has  left 
outside   of   her  credenda   large  tracts   of   debatable 

*  Diacusiiions  on  Philosophy,  pp.  35,  36> 


A   K/AIKW.  343 

questions  on  wliicli  Cliurclinieu  may  exercise  the 
fullest  measure  of  intellectual  freedom  compatible 
with  loyalty  to  the  aitieles  of  revealed  trutlj ;  and  we 
must  protest  a«rainst  any  enclosure  of  these  intellectual 
commons,  let  the  proposal  come  from  wiiat  (juartcr 
it  may. 


INDEX, 


Absolution,  268 
Agnosticism,  10 
Apostolical  succession,  273 
Avianisra,  3,  253 
Ascension,  the,  236 
Athanasian  Creed,  7,  303 
Atonement,  the,  and  nature,  184 

and  progress,  181 

and  propitiation,  170 

co-extensive  with  creation,  33, 

164 
,  different  views  of,  153 

Biogenesis,  15,  106 

Christ,  Ascension  of,  217,  236 

,  Body  of,  128,  215 

,  Bri<le  of,  xxii. 

,    "character,"    absence    of,    in, 

134 
compared  with  other  teachers, 

137 

,  conception  of,  103,  115,  120 

,  human  nature  of,  xx.  12o,  17G 

,  miracles  of,  144,  106 

,  i>ersonality  of,  and  ours,  126 

,  resurrection  of,  a  metaphysical 

necessity,  189 

,  objections  to,  202,  212 

,  sonship  of,  xxxix.,  79 

,  temptation  of,  140 

the  food  of  His  people,  242 

the  food  of  mankind,  246 

Church,  the,  248 

,  Bride  of  Christ,  xzii. 


Church,   the,    guardian    of    revealed 

truth,  251 
,  original    constitution    of, 

XXV.,  257 
Communicatio  Idiomatum,  152 
Creator,  God  the,  42,  306,  341 

,  man  a,  49,  341 

Creed,  a  right,  necessary  to  salvation, 

7,  304 
and  character,  294 

"Damnatory  clauses,"  309,  321 
Development  from  within,  liv. 
Diaconate,  the,  259 

EpiscoPAcr,  ixv.,  257 

and  English  Nonconformity,  280 

Eternity,  290 
Eucharist,  the,  241 
Evil,  existence  of,  57 
Evolution,  theory  of,  20,  115 
and  miracles,  200 

Father,  God  the,  31,  39 
First  Cause,  10 

a  personal  energy,  22 

Freedom  of  thought,  5 
Free-will,  53 

and  existence  of  evil,  59 

Future  life,  instinct  of,  83,  96,  190 

God,  personalitv  of,  evidence  of  reason 

for,  17 
Old    Testament    evidence 

for.  61 


346 


INDEX. 


Heaven,  236 

Hereditary  guilt,  166 

Humanity  deified  in  Christ,  176,  185 

Hutton,  K.  H.,  on  creed  and  character, 

305 
Hypostatic  union,  141,  149 

Impeccability  of  Christ,  140 
Imputed  righteousness,  156 
Incarnation,  the,  xli.,  38,  100,  121 
Instincts,  universal,  87,  et  seq. 

Judgment,  316 

Love,  Eternal,  44,  341 

and  justice,  169 

Life,  eternal,  290 

,  future,  instinct  of,  96,  190 

,  origin  of,  15,  106 

,  unisexual  propagation  of,  118 

Man,  dependence  of,  27 

,  the  nexus  between  highest  and 

lowest  life,  162 

Mansions,  many  in  heaven,  236 

Mary,  the  Blessed  Virgin,  xix.,  149 

Ministry,  the  threefold,  Bishop  Light- 
foot  on,  XXV. 

Miracles  and  evolution,  200 

,  creation  the  chief  of,  48 

,  Hume  on,  210 

,  Dr.  Mozley  on,  193 

"Mother  of  God,"  149 

Moharaedanism,  295 

Nonconformists,  280 

Omnipresence  of  God,  234 
Order  in  nature,  17,  23 
Origin  of  life,  15,  114 

Pain,  35,  263 

in  animals,  xxxvii.,  36 

Pantheism,  40 
Papalism,  282 
Pelagianism,  101 
Perceptivity,  abnormal,  229 


"  Perish  everlastingly, '  309 
"  Person,"  76 
Personality,  125 

of  God,  61 

of  our  Lord,  126 

Prayer,  88,  112 
Predestination,  177 
Presence,  the  Real,  244 
Priesthood,  the,  Aaronic,  260 

,  Christian,  266 

,  of  the  laity,  267 

"  Primogenitus  "  of  Christ,  xlii., 
Propitiation,  170 


79 


Ransom  paid  by  Christ,  175 
Reason  contrasted  with  instinct,  50 
Revelation,  gradual,  73 
Roman  objections  to  English  Church, 
284 

Sabellian  heresy,  81 
Sacrifice,  instinct  of,  90 
Sexual  distinction,  118 

,  permanence  of,  xi. 

Sin,  141,  314 

,  original,  166 

''  Son  of  Man,"  xxiv.,  135 
Spiritual  world,  the,  and  Revelation, 
217 

and  science,  224 

Sufferings  of  Christ,  38 

vicarious,  172 

"  Supernatural  Heligion,"  207 

Transmutation  of  species,  theory  of. 

116 
Trinity,  doctrine  of  in  Old  Testament, 

71 

in  New  Testament,  76 

,  relation  of  Divine  Persons  in,  78 

Unity  in  nature,  23,  157 
"  Unseen     Universe"    the,    47,    vide 
appendix 

Vesture.  God's  eternal,  45 
Virgin  births,  120 


1    1012  0 


010  2954 


'-'wHI^^B^' 

h 

:!5J!H 


!  .(tj  J'  I.'  n 


